PANAJI
The Mapusa Additional Sessions Court has discharged three accused from a charge under Section 5 of the Arms Act while directing them to face trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Valpoi, for another alleged violation of the Act in a 2021 hunting case near the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary.
The accused, Gokuldas Gaonkar, Vishwas Kerkar and Arjun Gawas, were discharged from the charge under Section 5 after the Court observed that the firearm allegedly recovered from them was not used in committing any offence. However, the Court held that they must stand trial for allegedly possessing a firearm without the required authorisation under the Arms Act.
The case relates to an incident on January 6, 2021, when forest officials allegedly intercepted the three men on government forest land at Ustem village in Sattari, located within the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary. The prosecution claimed that the accused were preparing to hunt using a single-barrel gun and live ammunition.
Forest officials also allegedly recovered items including a headlamp, billhook, polythene bags containing lead balls and pieces, coconut coir, and two small containers of gunpowder.
The Forest Department registered a case under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and filed a separate chargesheet in connection with the alleged wildlife offences. The Valpoi Police filed a separate chargesheet under the Arms Act.
While hearing the discharge plea, the Sessions Court noted that the licensed owner of the firearm, Sadanand Kerkar, had not given written permission to Vishwas Kerkar to carry the weapon into the forest. The Court also observed that the licence holder was not present when the accused were allegedly carrying the firearm, amounting to a violation of Section 3 of the Arms Act.
However, the Court held that Section 5 of the Arms Act was not applicable as the prosecution itself claimed that the accused were stopped before any hunting took place.
“Section 5 of the Arms Act would not be applicable since it is the prosecution case that the accused were intercepted before actual hunting could take place and therefore, the gun was not used for commission of any offence,” the Court observed.
The Court further noted that the alleged violation of Section 3 carries a maximum punishment of five years’ imprisonment. Since the offence was not committed in a notified ‘disturbed area’, it remains a non-cognisable and bailable offence triable by a JMFC court.
