The forest department had registered the case against him for possessing two pairs of ivory tusks under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act following an IT raid at his house
The forest department had registered the case against him for possessing two pairs of ivory tusks under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act following an IT raid at his house
The State government has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Perumbavoor, dismissing the State government’s plea to withdraw the case registered against actor Mohanlal under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, in the illegal ivory possession case.
In fact, the actor himself has already filed a petition against the dismissal of the State government’s request for withdrawing the prosecution against him. However, when the petition last time came up for hearing, a single judge had orally observed that under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), no power had been conferred on the accused to file applications for withdrawal of prosecution proceedings. If the court allows such a plea, the accused in criminal cases would start filing applications to seek withdrawal of cases filed against them.
Ownership certificate
The forest department had registered the case against him for possessing two pairs of ivory tusks under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, after an Income Tax raid at the Kochi residence of the actor on December 21, 2011, led to the seizure of two tusks. The actor has contended that he had obtained the ivory tusks legally and in 2015, on the directive of the Central government, the State government issued him a certificate of ownership.
In its revision petition, the State government said that the public prosecutor had filed the application for withdrawal of the case against the actor after duly applying his free mind and careful consideration of the material placed before it. Besides, the government had also given its consent for the withdrawal of the prosecution. It pointed out that the magistrate court while dismissing the withdrawal plea, had noted that a writ petition challenging the ownership certificate is pending before the High Court and observed the withdrawal application was filed in a hasty manner without addressing the challenges against the legality of the ownership certificate issued to the actor under section 40(4) of the Act.
The State government said that the validity of the ownership certificate was not relevant material in deciding the maintainability of the withdrawal application. While considering the withdrawal application, the court was not expected to analyse the evidence in the case. The task of the court was to see whether the application was filed with due application of mind based on relevant materials. Nor the court was expected to enter a finding on the merits of the case.
The public prosecutor had obtained the government’s consent for the withdrawal of the prosecution and filed the plea after considering the material in the case. It was for the prosecutor to take a decision on filing the application. In fact, the magistrate court should have awaited the decision of the High Court. Besides, there was no interim order staying the validity of the ownership certificate. Therefore, the order of the magistrate court was erroneous and unsustainable, the government argued in its petition.
