Fahad Hanif vs Secretary Forest and Wildlife Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Fahad Hanif VS Secretary Forest and Wildlife Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit S. 561-a---Gilgit-Baltistan Wildlife Protection act (V of 1975), Ss. 8, 10, 22, 24 & 29---Restriction on hunting, killing or capturing animals in wildlife reserve, acts restricted in a National Park, restriction on killing or capturing of protected or game animals, controlled hunting areas, unlawful possession of animals---Quashing of proceedings---Inherent power of High Court---Scope---Petitioner found a snow leopard cub in an injured and unconscious condition, he provided proper medication and after saving its life, handed over the cub to Conservator Wildlife---Later District Forest Officer Parks and Wildlife issued summon to the petitioner directing the petitioner to appear before him and explain as to why the expenditures involved in soft release of the snow leopard cub should not be charged on the petitioner---Validity---In the matter in hand, after perusal of proceedings taken by the respondents and allegations narrated in the contents of impugned summon issued by the Forest Magistrate against the petitioner, it transpired that the respondents through the instant proceedings intended to recover the expenditures involved in the release of snow leopard cub---Perusal of the Gilgit Baltistan Wildlife Protection act, 1975, showed that no such provision was available---Furthermore, it was admitted fact of affairs available on record that the petitioner/accused rescued a snow leopard cub, found in injured and unconscious condition, and after proper treatment and recovery the same was handed over to the respondents---Video clip shown in Court and statement of the petitioner recorded by the respondents transpired that the Conservator Wildlife had taken the custody of the cub which was now in custody of the department---Thus, the allegations regarding commission of offences under S.8, 10, 22, 24 & 29 Gilgit Baltistan Wildlife Protection act, 1975, against the accused/petitioner were not made out---Record of the case suggested that the petitioner should be given a letter of appreciation for his efforts made for saving a precious wildlife but instead, the respondents had initiated criminal proceedings against him which was not justified---Object of S.561-a,Cr.P.C., whereby inherent power was conferred upon the High Court was to do real and substantial justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of Court---Thus, it was to be first determined whether the facts alleged in the complaint disclosed commission of any criminal offenceon the part of applicant/accused or whether the criminal proceedings had been initiated with malafide intentions or to coerce the applicant---Proceedings against the petitioner/accused as contained in the complaint even if believed, no case was made out and continuation of the proceedings amounted to sheer abuse of process of Court which amounted to abuse of process of law---Petition was allowed by quashing all the impugned proceedings.

Fahad Hanif vs Secretary Forest and Wildlife Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit S — 2025 PCrLJ 2044 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ