Perumbavoor court denies request to drop ivory possession case against actor Mohanlal
A local court has declined the state government’s request to halt the prosecution proceedings against actor Mohanlal in the 2011 ivory possession case, stating that the Wild Life (Protection) Act serves the nation’s broader interests, not individual rights.
The Perumbavoor Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anju Cletus, rejected the state government’s plea on August 17, citing that neither the State nor any party can invoke the benefit of negligence on their part. In June 2011, Income Tax authorities seized four elephant tusks from the actor’s residence, leading to a registered case. The complainant alleged that the actor had used his influence to suppress the case through the then forest minister.
The court emphasized that the purpose of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is to safeguard the country’s greater interests and not shield individual rights. The withdrawal request was based on an ownership certificate issued to the accused during the investigation. The actor’s legal representation argued that the ownership certificate was retrospectively granted in line with the law.
However, the court pointed out that the ownership certificate’s validity had been challenged in the state high court, a crucial detail omitted from the withdrawal petition. Given these circumstances, the court dismissed the withdrawal petition, stating that it’s more just to evaluate the prosecution continuation pending the high court’s decision on the ownership certificate’s validity.
The court highlighted that the Wild Life Protection Act’s intent is to conserve, protect, and manage wildlife while ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the nation. It noted that the circumstances cast doubt on whether the Assistant Public Prosecutor exercised due discretion in filing the withdrawal petition.
The prosecution argued that since the accused possessed an ownership certificate granted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden of the state, prosecution against him would not hold.
