An illegal wildlife trader from Delhi who was convicted in a case of tiger skin and bones seizure registered at Ramnagar division in January 2009 managed to procure bail from Uttarakhand High Court during the pendency of criminal revision. Prior to this his conviction was upheld by Sessions court in August 2017.
In High Court counsel for the convict contended that the "Courts below erred in awarding the punishment as the role assigned to the revisionist was as simple as he was the purchaser of the alleged skin, which was never sent for FSL. It is contended that the revisionist could not be punished as same is barred by Section 30 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It is further contented the revisionist was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of appeal and he has never misused the bail granted to him."
In High Court counsel for the convict contended that the "Courts below erred in awarding the punishment as the role assigned to the revisionist was as simple as he was the purchaser of the alleged skin, which was never sent for FSL. It is contended that the revisionist could not be punished as same is barred by Section 30 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It is further contented the revisionist was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of appeal and he has never misused the bail granted to him."
No comments:
Post a Comment