Read Time: 06 minutes
It was argued that the spot panchanama does not indicate the discovery of any bird carcasses or broken eggs. It was submitted that based on the investigation materials all injured birds were subsequently released into the Airoli forest. Hence, it is evident that none of the birds were killed or amputated during the incident of cutting the tree branches
The Bombay High Court has refused to quash the FIR filed against a man for cutting a tree along with the bird nests and injuring the birds.
A division bench of the high court comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak was hearing a petition filed by a man who was booked under the Indian Penal Code, Wildlife Protection Act, and Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act.
On 12th May 2014, Puja Sakpal, founder of YODA (NGO namely Youth Organisation in Defence of Animals), noticed that trees in the Bandra area were being destroyed, which are habitat and nesting grounds for several birds over the years.
Sakpal, in his complaint, stated that a specific number of birds, along with their fledglings, have fallen to the ground and become ensnared by nets. Numerous birds have been discovered injured, and the felled trees have rendered many birds homeless during their nesting period.
On May 13th, Sakpal discovered that branches of trees, along with the nests on them and injured birds, had been discarded in the vicinity of Petit School. Approximately 40-50 injured birds were scattered in the area around the school.
Consequently, they transported the injured birds for initial treatment to Phoenix Animal Clinic, operated by Dr. Shivaji Tandel, in Prabhadevi.
Subsequent inquiries revealed that the individual who had contracted the cutting of the tamarind tree in the area was responsible for cutting the branches of the tree, breaking the bird nests on them, and causing injury to the birds due to the falling debris.
The counsel appearing for the applicant contended that Tamarind tree was located inside the compound wall of Petit School and not in the compound wall of the applicant’s building. As such there was no reason for the applicant to get the said tree trimmed
It was argued that the spot panchanama does not indicate the discovery of any bird carcasses or broken eggs. It was submitted that based on the investigation materials all injured birds were subsequently released into the Airoli forest. Hence, it is evident that none of the birds were killed or amputated during the incident of cutting the tree branches.
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the applicant failed to obtain lawful permission for tree cutting. Consequently, the applicant bears responsibility for the unlawful felling of the tree, leading to injuries to the birds and their nests. Thus, a prima facie case exists against the applicant.
The high court dismissed the petition, noting the existence of a prima facie case against the applicant.
“..there is a prima facie case of the offence alleged in the impugned F.I.R. Hence, the Applicant cannot escape the prosecution from the said offence. As a result, this Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.,” the order reads.
Case title: Amit Satish Dhutia vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
Please Login or Register
