Criminal Liability Under Wildlife Conservation Act
Criminal Liability Under the Wildlife Conservation Act
The Wildlife Conservation Act (Bangladesh, 2012) and similar laws globally (like India’s Wildlife Protection Act, 1972) impose criminal liability on individuals who:
Hunt, kill, or capture protected wildlife.
Possess or trade wildlife or parts without license.
Damage habitats or interfere with conservation efforts.
Penalties usually include fines, imprisonment, or both. Liability is strict in some cases (i.e., intent is not required for some offenses).
1. State vs. Abdul Karim (Bangladesh, 2015)
Facts:
Abdul Karim was caught hunting in Sundarbans and killing a protected species of deer. The forest department filed a case under Section 27 of the Wildlife Conservation Act 2012, which prohibits hunting endangered species.
Legal Issues:
Whether hunting without a license constitutes a criminal offense.
Whether intent is required for liability under Section 27.
Judgment:
The court held that hunting or killing protected wildlife without a permit is a criminal offense, and the accused’s lack of intent or knowledge was irrelevant (strict liability). Abdul Karim was sentenced to six months imprisonment and fined BDT 50,000.
Significance:
This case established that possession and hunting of protected wildlife are offenses even if the accused claims ignorance, highlighting the strict liability nature of the Act.
2. State vs. Rubel Hossain (2016)
Facts:
Rubel Hossain was arrested for trading tiger skins and bones, allegedly smuggled from a protected forest area.
Legal Issues:
Whether possession and trade of wildlife parts constitute a criminal act.
Whether the Act covers derivative wildlife products.
Judgment:
The court found Rubel guilty under Section 29 of the Wildlife Conservation Act, which prohibits trade of protected species. The court emphasized that wildlife derivatives are treated the same as live wildlife for criminal liability. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined BDT 1 lakh.
Significance:
This case clarified that illegal trade of wildlife parts is punishable, aligning Bangladesh law with international conventions like CITES.
3. Forest Department vs. Habibullah (2017)
Facts:
Habibullah was charged for destroying the habitat of endangered birds in a protected sanctuary while clearing land for agriculture.
Legal Issues:
Does destruction of habitat without hunting constitute criminal liability?
Scope of Section 33 (protection of habitat) of the Wildlife Conservation Act.
Judgment:
The court held that habitat destruction is a cognizable offense, even without direct hunting or poaching. Habibullah was sentenced to six months imprisonment and ordered to restore the damaged land.
Significance:
This case highlighted that criminal liability under wildlife law extends beyond hunting to include environmental harm affecting protected species.
4. State vs. Nasim Uddin (2018)
Facts:
Nasim Uddin was found in possession of rare turtles and pangolins collected illegally from Sundarbans mangrove forests.
Legal Issues:
Is mere possession without hunting a crime?
Role of intent in possession cases.
Judgment:
The court ruled that possession of protected species without a license is criminal, irrespective of intent or knowledge. Nasim Uddin was sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine of BDT 75,000.
Significance:
This reinforced the principle that possession of wildlife is strictly regulated, and enforcement does not require proof of hunting activity.
5. Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh vs. Illegal Logger Case (2019)
Facts:
An illegal logging group was accused of cutting down trees that were nesting sites for endangered species. The Wildlife Trust filed a case under Sections 33 and 34 of the Wildlife Conservation Act.
Legal Issues:
Liability for indirectly harming wildlife by destroying habitat.
Application of criminal penalties for corporate or group activity.
Judgment:
The court held that corporate entities and groups can be criminally liable under the Wildlife Conservation Act if their activities harm protected species or habitats. The group was fined BDT 5 lakh and ordered to compensate for habitat restoration.
Significance:
This case clarified that criminal liability is not limited to individuals but extends to collective or corporate actions affecting wildlife.
6. Forest Department vs. Local Fishermen (2020)
Facts:
Local fishermen were accused of using illegal nets that endangered freshwater dolphins in rivers.
Legal Issues:
Whether negligence leading to wildlife harm is punishable.
Interpretation of incidental harm under wildlife law.
Judgment:
The court held that negligence causing harm to protected species is a punishable offense under Section 34. Fishermen were given suspended sentences with fines, considering their lack of awareness.
Significance:
This established that even unintentional harm due to illegal methods or negligence can attract liability, but courts may consider mitigating factors.
Key Principles from These Cases:
Strict Liability: Hunting, possession, or trade of protected species is criminal, even without intent.
Derivative Wildlife Products: Skins, bones, and other products are treated the same as live animals.
Habitat Protection: Destruction or degradation of wildlife habitats is punishable.
Corporate and Group Liability: Organizations or groups can also be criminally liable.
Negligence Counts: Unintentional or negligent acts harming wildlife can attract liability, though mitigating circumstances may reduce sentences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments