Can possession of 'Indian Flap Shell Turtle' lead to criminal proceedings under Wild Life Protection Act? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a review petition and recalled its order of May 2018 which had upheld initiation of criminal proceedings against a person charged under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for possessing an Indian Flap Shell Turtle (Titty Alias George Kurian v. Deputy Range Forest Officer)..A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra refused to interfere with a judgment of Kerala High Court which absolved the person of criminal charges. In 2017, the Kerala High Court had quashed the criminal charges against the review petitioner under the Wildlife Protection Act for possessing a "banned species of turtle." The Supreme Court had on May 16, 2018, set aside the High Court order..The review petitioner, Titty Alias George Kurian was slapped with criminal charges under the Act though a veterinary surgeon had identified the turtle in his possession as an "Indian Flap Shell Turtle.".Kurian moved the High Court seeking to quash the charges. He argued that only possession of the Indian Soft Shell Turtle, and not the Indian Flap Shell Turtle, was prohibited under the Act..The High Court took into account the submission made and quashed charges against him in November 2017..The Deputy Range Forest Officer then appealed against the High Court order, arguing that whether the turtle was a specific species is matter of trial and not to be decided by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..The top court allowed the appeal in May 2018 and by a brief order set aside the High Court order. "The view of the High Court that the said provision is not applicable cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal," the apex court said in that order. .Deciding the review petition, the Bench took into account the report of the veterinary surgeon and the fact that the turtle was soon released after being taken from the petitioner's possession..The Court thus held,"In the facts of the present case, on the face of it, the Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure, the High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings registered for Wild Life offences.".Thus, the Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the Kerala High Court, and recalled its May 2018 judgment..Advocate Abhilash MR appeared for Kurian while advocate Nishe Rajan Shonker represented the Deputy Range Forest Officer. .[Read judgment]