Hazy areas in handling wildlife cases come to fore after Salman's convict

Bengaluru: Salman Khan’s conviction in the Black Buck case may have cheered wildlife activists, yet Karnataka has far to go in guaranteeing that poachers and seekers are punished. 

Serving and retired judges and public prosecutors bring up that there is absence of coordination between the lawyers and the forest authorities in booking cases and bringing the accused before the law. According to a High Court Judge “Over the past ten years, 100-150 wild life cases are pending under the watchful eye of the court for hearing. This does not imply that there are no wildlife cases.It just shows that there are gaps in recording cases, because of which they are suppressed at the beginning,” 

From the past few years the Karnataka Judicial Academy is preparing public prosecutors on the most proficient method to seek after wildlife related cases. In any case, Academy members bring up that there were no special lawyers working with the forest officials in such cases. There are exceptions like Justice A V Chandrashekhar and public prosecutor Mahesh Vaidya, who are currently training lawyers and are working with forest authorities on wild life cases. 

An open prosecutor who as of late documented a case for the office said the staff didn’t know about basic wild life laws which can reinforce their case. For example, Section 55 (8) of the Wildlife Protection Act says there is no compelling reason to document a FIR and that the court can take cognisance after a complaint is recorded with a justice. But very few know about this. 

“Police authorities and lawyers don’t have the foggiest idea about that in wildlife cases, FIR need not be documented. In 2009, the government provided a notice that the police ought not record FIR in wild life cases,” he said. 

Priya Mishra, assistant professor, National Law School of India University, said that relatively few students were taking up specialization in wild life crimes, similar to state cases relating to narcotics or corruption. This is on the grounds that the quantity of cases isn’t enormous and it is an open lively zone. 

Praveen Bhargav, Trustee Wildlife First, said that there was a requirement for unique financing for wildlife cases. There is additionally a demand pending before the forest department to accelerate cases relating to Schedule 1 and 2 of the Wildlife Protection Act.