Delhi High Court Quashes Complaint Against School Principal in Mongoose Hair Brushes Case

Lack of Evidence and Procedural Lapses Lead to Dismissal of Wildlife Protection Act Charges Against Deepesh Gupta

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has quashed the complaint against Deepesh Gupta, the Principal of Bal Bhawan Senior Secondary School, who was accused of possessing prohibited mongoose hair brushes in violation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, found the complaint unsustainable due to the absence of specific averments or documents proving Gupta's responsibility for the school's procurement and management of the wildlife articles in question.

The case arose from a raid conducted on July 24, 2013, at the school's biology laboratory, where seven brushes made from mongoose hair were seized. The raid was initiated based on information provided by a volunteer from the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB). However, the Court observed that the volunteer merely accompanied the police and did not independently conduct the raid, addressing the petitioner's objection to the authority of volunteers.

Gupta sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that the simultaneous registration of an FIR and a complaint constituted double jeopardy and violated his fundamental rights. The Court clarified that the FIR was a preliminary step in the investigation and did not constitute separate proceedings. It emphasized that the Wildlife Act mandates prosecution through a formal complaint by an authorized officer, which was duly filed in this case.

Despite confirming the mongoose hair composition of the brushes through forensic analysis, the Court highlighted the procedural lapses in the case. The raid was conducted without a search warrant, and the school failed to produce a required Certificate of Ownership or declaration under Section 40 of the Act, which would have legitimized their possession of the brushes. However, the Court found that the lack of evidence proving Gupta's role in the school's administration and procurement processes warranted the quashing of the complaint against him.

The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and providing concrete evidence in wildlife protection cases. It also clarifies the roles and limitations of volunteers in wildlife crime investigations.

Bottom Line:

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - A complaint alleging violation of the Act must disclose specific averments and evidence showing the accused's responsibility for the conduct of the institution's affairs and possession of prohibited articles. Absence of such evidence can lead to quashing of proceedings.

Statutory provisions: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Sections 9, 39, 40, 50, 51, 55, 57, 58; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 420, 428, 468; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482.

Deepesh Gupta v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2819347