All three appellants have appealed against their convictions. There is no appeal against the sentences, because of the mandatory provisions of the legislation in casu. The representative of the Crown conceded Accused No. 5's appeal, due to the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence against him, specifically. Since Accused No.
The petitioners are dealers and artisans in ivory who carry on the business and trade in ivory including the manufacture of articles derived from ivory lawfully imported into India prior to the ban. They imported part of the stock of mammoth ivory from Russia and part of it from Hong Kong for the purposes of the business.
In this case the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of Amendment Act 44, 1991, to the Constitution of India, which prohibited trade in imported ivory. The appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20.3.1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
The petitioner aggrieved by the letter dated 23.6.2003 whereby it has been informed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest that the petitioner's request of import of Caiman Crocodilus Fuscus skin from USA cannot be granted. The petitioner intended to import tanned skin of Caiman Crocodilus Fuscus from the USA.
On 6 of November 2005, Kenya Wildlife Service Rangers found 2 men, the current appellants, slaughtering a buffalo within the Ragati forest. Arresting them, they recovered a spear, 2 pangas, a snare and 2 bags. The appellants were charged with the aforesaid offences.
Mr. Tridon operates a centre for the artificial incubation of parrot eggs in Champagnier. He is accused in the main proceedings of having transferred for consideration captive born and bred specimens of species of macaw whose use for commercial purposes is prohibited throughout national territory by the Guyane decree.
The Honduran Curly hair tarantula is a species protected under CITES and Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on theprotection of wild fauna and flora (“the EC Regulation”). This European Court of Justice (ECJ) case concerns the interpretation of Article 8(5) of the EC Regulation.