Delhi High Court: Courts Can’t Deviate From Legislative Mandate To Impose Lesser Sentence Or Grant Benefit Of Probation When A Minimum Sentence Is Prescribed By Law

The Court set aside the sentencing Order passed by the Special Court in a case involving the possession of banned Shahtoosh shawls and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court held that the Special Court erred in awarding a sentence lower than the statutory minimum prescribed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (the Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked, “The gravity of such offences cannot be undermined merely on the ground that the accused persons were not directly involved in the killing of the animals. The prohibition extends not only to poaching but also to possession, trade, and facilitation of trade in such articles. The learned Special Judge erred in granting undue leniency by overlooking this crucial aspect of the offence.”

SPP Ravi Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Shiv Kumar Sharma appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

An FIR was registered against the accused after the CBI recovered eight Shahtoosh shawls from the premises of the accused. The accused were charged under Section 120B of the IPC read with Sections 49(B)(1) and 58 of the Act and convicted by the Trial Court.

The CBI filed an appeal before the Special Court, arguing that the punishment awarded was below the statutory minimum under Section 51(1A) of the Act, which prescribes a minimum of three years’ imprisonment. The Special Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone in jail, with a default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted that the accused were found guilty of dealing in Shahtoosh shawls, derived from the Tibetan Antelope, a species listed under Schedule I of the Act. The Act categorically bans any trade or commerce in products derived from Schedule I animals.

“This Court is of the view that the learned Special Judge has failed to take into the account the fact that all the accused persons were granted bail by the Court Concerned and none of the accused persons have undergone imprisonment of more than two days, therefore, the award of punishment of the period already undergone in jail is bad in law on the face of it,” the Court explained.

The Bench held that the legislative intent behind prescribing a minimum sentence for offences under the Act must be given due regard. It was pointed out that the Act was enacted with the objective of curbing wildlife-related offences that pose a serious threat to ecological balance and biodiversity.

“The stringent provisions, including the exclusion of probationary relief, reflect the legislative determination to deter illegal trade and exploitation of endangered species. Granting a sentence lesser than the prescribed minimum would frustrate the very object of the Act and set a dangerous precedent for future cases, thereby weakening the enforcement mechanism envisaged by the legislature,” the Court remarked.

Consequently, the Court held that “in cases where a minimum sentence is prescribed by law, courts cannot deviate from the legislative mandate to impose a lesser sentence or grant the benefit of probation…Further, when the conviction is not disputed and only the quantum of punishment is under challenge, this Court or any other appellate forum cannot reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.

Cause Title: Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Md. Yaseen Wani & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1293)

Appearance:

Petitioner: SPP Ravi Sharma; Advocates Swapnil Choudhary, Ishann Bhardwaj, Sagar and Madhulika Raj Sharma

Respondents: Advocates Shiv Kumar Sharma and Nitin Joy

Click here to read/download the Judgment