TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rth by the applicant is that material has since emerged in inquiries, investigations or prosecutions in Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Uganda, Peru, Malaysia and Venezuela bearing upon the international acquisition and transfer of animals by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 which warrants a fresh investigation by the Indian agencies or by foreign or global agencies. Reliance is also placed on an agenda document SC79 Document 6.3.4 of the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ['CITES'] and the decision of the CITES Standing Committee thereon at its 79th Meeting, which, taken with the foregoing foreign material, are said to require registration of cases by the appropriate law enforcement agencies against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and their associated Trust - Khodiyar Animal Welfare Trust and assisting foreign or global agencies in investigation, prosecution, etc. 3. In substance, the following reliefs have been prayed in this Miscellaneous Application: i. Directions to the Central Government through the Central Bureau of Investigation ['CBI'], the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ['DRI'], the Wildlife Crime Control B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the SIT was thorough. It held several meetings, conducted site inspections, afforded opportunity to all concerned to submit information and documents, examined the foreign donor zoos and entities, called for and considered the responses of the CITES Management Authorities of, inter alia, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc. and obtained information from all concerned, namely, the CBI, ED, DRI, Commissioner of Customs at Jamnagar, WCCB and District Police. Notice was issued to the complainants, journalists and environmentalists who had published or raised allegations, including those whose reportage the applicant/petitioner now relies upon and each one who appeared before the SIT was heard. 7. Upon perusal of the SIT Report, we have found that the allegation in the present Miscellaneous Application pertains to the very same period and of transfers of animals from the foreign jurisdictions and, thus, which has already been examined by the SIT. Therefore, the question now is whether the same can be reopened and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 can be made liable in civil law or criminal law or such directions as prayed for can be issued to any dom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its were found to be mapped to the QR-coded central CITES verification system. That the UAE authorities are now investigating Mr. Aldhaheri for conduct on UAE soil is a matter between him and the sovereign authorities of that State; it does not displace the findings of the SIT. Therefore, the bar of finality on this subject squarely applies. (ii) Reference is next made to transfers to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from Venezuela, in particular from the entity known as Criadero San Antonio Abad. Reliance is placed on reportage by Armando.info. The SIT, at paragraph 115 of its Report, has already considered the Armando.info reportage that questioned the export of over 1,800 animals from Venezuela to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It examined the underlying records, including the CITES export permits issued by the Ministry of Ecosocialism of Venezuela and the corresponding Indian import documentation, and found that each consignment was non-commercial and zoo-to-zoo. The "invoices" relied upon by complainants were scrutinised and found to be standard CIF customs documents reflecting transport, insurance and handling, and not price of the animals, etc. Paragraph 149 records independent ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raph 4.4.2, the SIT records the progress of the conservation breeding programme and notes that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have themselves engaged directly with Brazil on the subject. The bar of finality applies and further no liability can be fastened on respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for any prosecution against Mr. Silva, Mr. Guth or any other person abroad. (iv) Reference is next made to transfers or investigations in Peru, Malaysia, Uganda, Iraq and Mexico. The Peruvian case, drawn from a social media post of 28.01.2025, concerns the intervention of the Peruvian authorities against one Mr. Ting Yu and "The Ark" zoo. The Malaysian case rests on the prosecution before the Sepang Sessions Court of two directors of a trading company. The Ugandan case rests on a TRAFFIC Wildlife Trafficking Assessment of April 2018. The Iraqi and Mexican cases are likewise founded on media reports, with reference to Mr. Karak and Mr. Ibrahim respectively. We have perused the annexures. In substance, the applicant/petitioner has relied on media reports proceeding on the a priori assumption that all trafficked animals arrive at respondent Nos. 5 and 6. That very species of speculative reasoning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who has entered into a transaction without notice of such discrepancies. In no case is there any evidence attributed to showing that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have acted with notice of discrepancies or forgeries etc. and acted not in a bona fide manner. 10. We find it necessary to add a word on the larger premise that pervades the application, namely, that an acquisition by a zoo such as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 through commercial means is somehow impermissible. The provision regulating acquisition of animals by a zoo is Section 38I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It provides that no zoo shall acquire, sell or transfer any wild animal without the previous permission of the Central Zoo Authority, and prohibits sale or transfer of any wild or captive animal except from or to a recognised zoo. A recognised zoo, in the scheme of the Act, is necessarily a zoo recognised in and situated in India. For foreign establishments, the requirement of recognition is, in the nature of things, inapplicable, so long as the purpose of the establishment is that of a zoo, rescue centre or breeding centre. We find no other bar in law. Section 38I, coupled with the principle noticed above, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctivities linked to the sale of animals or their offspring by either the GZRRC or the RKTEWT", and that, at the 79th Meeting, the Standing Committee declined to adopt the originally proposed restriction on the issuance of import permits for Appendix I species. To the extent, therefore, that the applicant/petitioner relies upon SC79 Document 6.3.4 and the decision of the Standing Committee thereon to seek inquiry, investigation or prosecution of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in respect of any of the transfers there discussed, the bar of finality recorded at paragraph 9 above operates with equal force, and we make no direction for any such inquiry, investigation or prosecution. 12. It is, however, necessary to draw a clear distinction. While SC79 Document 6.3.4 raises no question of culpability of the kind urged by the applicant/petitioner, it does contain observations of a forward-looking and systemic character, addressed to the strengthening of due diligence by the CITES Management Authority of India, to the closer scrutiny of source and purpose codes, to the breeding-in-captivity test under Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev. CoP19), and to the organisational adequacy of the Management Auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i.e., no one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause, is a principle of long standing in the common law and one which this Court has consistently respected. Where the entire field has, by deliberate institutional design, been remitted to a high-powered body, examined, reported upon, and brought to closure by judicial order, that closure is meant to hold. The Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, wide as it is, does not exist to be the engine of perpetual re-agitation. This is a principle embodied in the doctrine of res judicata/constructive res judicata and the right against double jeopardy enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. It follows that if a particular allegation or transfer fell within the remit of the SIT and was in fact dealt with by it, the Orders of this Court dated 15.09.2025 and 09.03.2026 attach to it; no investigation, inquiry or prosecution against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 can be directed in respect thereof, and the matter cannot be reopened at the instance of the applicant/petitioner or any other body, domestic or international. We have, therefore, referred to this consequence, in the discussion above, as the bar of finality. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reaching that trust. We decline to lend our process to such a course. The mere circumstance that an employee or consultant has demitted office, or harbours a grievance, does not loosen those obligations; if anything, the law looks upon a disgruntled former insider with particular caution, for the value of his information often varies inversely with his loyalty. The legal position bears statement, so that those potentially concerned are left in no doubt as to where they stand. Disclosure in breach of confidentiality may, at the threshold, expose the person concerned to civil action for damages and injunctive relief. The exposure does not rest there. An employee, consultant or agent entrusted with confidential information of his employer or principal stands, in law, in a fiduciary position; a dishonest disclosure of that information attracts Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ['Sanhita'], punishable, in the case of a clerk or servant, with imprisonment up to seven years and fine, and, in the case of an agent, with imprisonment for life, or up to ten years, and fine. The offence is cognisable and non-bailable in its aggravated forms. Where the disclosure is procured by d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by us in paragraph 3 above are rejected. 19. As indicated by us, we are of the view that certain positive and forward looking directions may be necessary as far as CMA India is concerned. For this, it is necessary to briefly set out a background. The international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora is globally regulated by CITES. Species listed in Appendix I to the Convention are species threatened with extinction, in respect of which trade is permitted only in exceptional circumstances and requires both an export permit issued by the Management Authority of the country of export and an import permit issued by the Management Authority of the country of import. Species listed in Appendix II are species not necessarily threatened with extinction but in respect of which trade must be controlled to avoid utilisation incompatible with their survival, and require an export permit but not an import permit. The Convention is administered through the Conference of the Parties, the Standing Committee and the Secretariat at Geneva. The CITES Secretariat issued agenda document SC79 Document 6.3.4, which was duly placed before the 79th Meeting of the Standing Committee at S....