In a case concerning an alleged illegal hunting attempt near the Madei Wildlife Sanctuary in 2021, the Mapusa Additional Sessions Court has partly allowed a discharge application filed by three accused — Gokuldas Gaonkar, Vishwas Kerkar, and Arjun Gawas. While discharging the accused trio from charges under Section 5 of the Arms Act, the Court held that no offence had been committed using an illegal firearm. However, it directed that they face trial before the JMFC Court in Valpoi on charges of possessing a firearm without a valid licence.

The case stems from an incident on January 6, 2021, on government forest land at Ustem village in Sattari, an area that falls within the designated Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Madei Wildlife Sanctuary. Forest officials allegedly intercepted the three accused while they were attempting to hunt using a single-barrel gun and live ammunition. The forest team also recovered several items allegedly used for hunting from their possession, including a headlamp, a billhook, polythene bags containing lead balls and lead pieces, coconut coir, and two small jars containing gunpowder.

The Forest Department initially registered an offence under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, and a separate chargesheet had already been filed in connection with the alleged wildlife offences. Concurrently, the Valpoi Police Station filed a chargesheet under the Arms Act.

While considering the discharge application, the Mapusa Additional Sessions Court observed that the registered owner of the firearm, Sadanand Kerkar, had not given written authorisation permitting accused Vishwas Kerkar to carry the licensed firearm into the forest. Further, the firearm owner was not present with the accused at the time of the incident, which amounted to a violation of the proviso to Section 3 of the Arms Act. However, while examining the charge under Section 5 of the Arms Act, the Court held that the provision was not attracted. It observed: “Section 5 of the Arms Act would not be applicable since it is the prosecution case that the accused were exposed before actual hunting could take place and therefore, said gun was not used for commission of any offence.”

The Mapusa Additional Sessions Court in its order noted that contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to five years. Since the incident did not occur in a designated “disturbed area,” the offence remains non-cognizable, bailable, and triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court.