Nagpur CJM: Three get 3 years in leopard-skin sale case

The Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court in Nagpur convicted Gulam Mustafa, Ajay and Gopal in an illegal leopard-skin sale case on 5 November 2026 and sentenced each to three years in prison and a fine of Rs 5,000, the Central Bureau of Investigation said.

According to the CBI, the convictions followed a trial in a case it registered over allegations that the three had illegally sold leopard skins to unidentified people. The agency announced the same prison term and fine for each man.

The CBI said it filed the chargesheet, the formal document setting out the prosecution’s accusations after investigation, before the Nagpur Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21 December 2001. It cited Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the criminal-conspiracy provision, read with Sections 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.

The full Nagpur judgment was not available for this report. The account of the outcome rests on the CBI’s announcement, which does not identify the presiding magistrate, reproduce the operative order or explain how the court assessed the evidence against each defendant. It also does not describe the defence submissions or specify the provisions under which each conviction was recorded.

A chargesheet filed in 2001

The CBI’s chronology places the filing of the chargesheet nearly 25 years before the sentencing announcement. The agency did not state when the alleged sales occurred or when it registered the case, and it provided no account of the intervening proceedings.

Those distinctions matter when describing the age of the prosecution. The chargesheet date establishes when the agency brought its accusations before the court; it does not establish the date of the alleged offence or how long the trial itself lasted.

An IANS report published by Lokmat Times on 5 November 2026 described the matter as a “15-year-old case”, while also giving the chargesheet date as 21 December 2001. That description is inconsistent with the interval between the stated filing and sentencing dates. The CBI’s announcement supplies no explanation for the discrepancy.

The agency’s statement separates the allegation on which it registered the case from the result announced after trial. It says the case concerned illegal sales to unknown persons and that the court subsequently convicted and sentenced the three defendants. It does not reproduce findings establishing the role of each man, identify buyers or describe any seized material.

What the cited provisions concern

The prosecution combined an allegation of criminal conspiracy with wildlife-law offences, according to the provisions listed by the CBI. Criminal conspiracy concerns an unlawful agreement; citing it alongside the wildlife provisions indicates that the prosecution alleged a shared criminal arrangement, rather than listing only an individual act of sale. The announcement does not disclose the evidence relied on to establish such an agreement.

The IANS report published by Lokmat Times described the wildlife provisions as concerning restrictions on dealing in animal trophies and articles. Section 49-B addresses prohibited dealings in specified wildlife products, while Section 51 provides penalties for violations. The precise statutory basis for the sentences, however, cannot be reconstructed from the brief list of charges alone.

The broader framework was explained by the Supreme Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 20 October 2010 by Justices Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur. In that judgment, the court described Chapters V and VA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act as prohibiting trade or commerce in wild animals, animal articles and trophies.

The Supreme Court also explained that Chapter VI makes violations of the Act criminal offences. It referred to an increase in punishment through the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, under Section 51.

That historical explanation does not establish which version of the punishment provision the Nagpur court applied. The chargesheet identified by the CBI predates the amendment mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment, and the agency’s announcement does not set out the Nagpur court’s sentencing analysis.

Protection extends beyond hunting

In Sansar Chand, the Supreme Court distinguished restrictions on hunting from restrictions on trade. It explained that Chapter III prohibits hunting of wild animals except in limited circumstances, while Chapter IV enables state governments to declare sanctuaries and national parks and restricts the destruction or removal of animals from those areas.

The trading provisions address a different part of wildlife protection: commerce in animals and their products. This distinction is relevant to the way the CBI described the Nagpur case. Its announcement concerns an illegal sale of skins; it does not say that the three defendants were convicted of killing leopards.

The Supreme Court placed the legislation within the Constitution’s environmental framework. It cited Article 48A, which directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife, and Article 51A(g), which makes protection of the natural environment, including wildlife, a duty of citizens.

These passages provide legal background, not evidence about the Nagpur defendants. The CBI does not say that the trial court relied on Sansar Chand, and the separate judgment cannot establish the facts or reasoning behind their convictions.

The CBI statement gives neither the number of leopard skins involved nor their value. It also provides no information about an appeal, bail after conviction or suspension of the prison sentences.