Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), for quashing of the prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 40 (2) read with 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as abated. The corresponding trial is pending as Criminal Case No. 2850/2007, in the Court of Shri Ajay Singh, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni. Substance of the charge framed against the accused/petitioner at the trial is that on 01. 09. 1994 at his residence situated at village jhinjhri, he was found in an illegal possession of as many as eight trophies of various wild animals with two skins of Sambhar (Indian Antelope ). ( 2. ) AS reflected in the order-dated 22. 10. 2007 by the trial magistrate, the petitioner by way an application filed on 25. 03. 2004 had made a prayer for closing the criminal proceedings as abated in view of the provision of sub-section (2)of Section 40a that was inserted by amending Act No. 16 of 2003 w. e. f. 01. 04. 2003. According to him, consequent to the amendment, he had submitted a declaration to the Chief Wild life Warden, Bhopal with regard to the trophies forming subject-matter of the charge in the prescribed form within the stipulated period. For this, attention has been invited to the corresponding admission made by H. K. Dave (DW1), the then SDO Forest at katni. ( 3. ) IN the light of these facts on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that continuance of his prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court as the newly introduced provision grants an absolute immunity of the prosecution. ( 4. ) IN response, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has pointed out that the provision of sub-Section (2) of Section 40a of the Act is of no avail to the petitioner who was allegedly found in illegal possession of the trophies as well as the skin at an earlier point of time. He has further contended that no interference under the inherent powers is called with a legitimate prosecution of a long pending trial. Before entering into the merits of the rival contentions, it would be necessary to advert of the provisions of Section 40a of the Act which reads as under : 40a. He has further contended that no interference under the inherent powers is called with a legitimate prosecution of a long pending trial. Before entering into the merits of the rival contentions, it would be necessary to advert of the provisions of Section 40a of the Act which reads as under : 40a. Immunity in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (2) and (4) of section 40 of this Act, the central Government may, by notification, require any person to declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer, any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy derived from animals specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule ii in his control, custody or possession, in respect of which no declaration had been made under subsection (1) or sub-section (4) of section 40, in such form, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed. (2) Any action taken or purported to be taken for violation of section 40 of this Act at any time before the commencement of the Wild Life (Protection)Amendment Act, 2002 shall not be proceeded with and all pending proceedings shall stand abated. (3) Any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy declared under sub-section (1), shall be dealt with in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. ] ( 5. ) IT is true that sub-section (2) [supra] applies to all pending proceedings initiated for violation of Section 40 of the Act irrespective of whether the trophy derived from animals specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, is a cured one or is an uncured trophy as defined in Section 2 (32) of the Act. However, the fact of the matter is that in addition to the cured trophies comprising (a) skull and horns of a wild buffalo (b) skull and horns of a goch (Markhor) (c) skull and horns of deer (Barasimha) (d) two skulls and horns of bison (Gaur) (e) skull and horns of black-buck (f) two skulls and horns of Sambhar (g)two skins of spotted deer (Cheetal) and two skins of Sambhar that falls in Scheduled III to the Act were also recovered from the petitioner"s possession. Moreover, the issue as to whether his declaration of trophies fulfilled the necessary requirements as prescribed by the corresponding rules framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests is a question of fact. To sum up, the charge against the petitioner is two-fold. One relates to the trophies whereas the other concerns skins. It is the first fold only, that may attract sub-Section (2), in case the relevant requirements are duly satisfied. However, in any event, it would not be possible to quash the prosecution for an illegal possession of the skins. ( 6. ) IT is well settled that the inherent powers, under Section 482 of the Code, are to be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of Court but not to stifle a legitimate prosecution, when the issue involved, whether factual or legal can not be decided without sufficient material (Minu kumari vs. State of Bihar (2006) 4 SCC 359 referred to ). Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions judge in the revisional order dated 24. 10. 2007, no interference at the fag end of the trial would be desirable in view of the fact that the application for abatement of the proceedings though filed on 25. 03. 2004 was pressed at the stage of final arguments only. For these reasons, the petition deserves rejection. ( 7. ) THE petition, therefore, stands dismissed. As an obvious consequence, the interim stay granted vide order-dated 5/12/2007 stands vacated.