JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. The challenge in this revision is made to the followings: (i) Judgment and order dated 08.09.2015, passed in Criminal Case No. 141 of 2014, Deputy Regional Forest Officer, Kalagarh Corbet Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar vs. Taseen, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 9, 27, 38(v), 35(8) and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (“the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for further period of three months. (ii) Judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 2015, Taseen v. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital. By it, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed in the case affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 18.12.2013, forest officials were on patrolling duty in Dhela Bhabhar Forest Block, Pathurwa Western Beat, Compartment No. 18. At about 06:00 in the evening, they spotted the revisionist. He was questioned. He revealed that he has come to the forest on an invitation of one Umar, so as to kill tigers. Forest officials prepared the report and finally a complaint was filed against the revisionist on 15.02.2014, which is basis of the case. Evidence under Section 244 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) was recorded and, thereafter, on 17.02.2014, charge under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 9, 27, 38(v), 35(8) r/w Section 51 of the Act was framed against him, to which, he denied and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all six witnesses namely, PW1 Govind Singh Dangi, the person who arrested the applicant, PW2 Mukesh Singh, PW3 Jagat Singh Bisht and PW4 Rakesh Kumar Bhatt who were accompanying PW1 Govind Singh Dangi, on the date of incident, PW5 K.S. Rawat, who prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witnesses and PW6 Sanjay Kumar Pandey, he also stated about some call detail record. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, he has been falsely implicated. 5. After prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, he has been falsely implicated. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that no offence is made out; the revisionist was allegedly arrested with a patal. It is argued that it does not make out any offence. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that PW1 Govind Singh Dangi, PW2 Mukesh Singh, PW3 Jagat Singh Bisht and PW4 Rakesh Kumar Bhatt have recovered a patal from the revisionist and PW5 K.S. Rawat has stated that the place of incident was within the Sanctuary. 7. PW1 Govind Singh Dangi has stated that on the date of incident, they spotted the applicant and recovered a patal from him; he revealed that he has visited the forest area on an invitation to kill tigers. The revisionist revealed that he belongs to a gang which is involved in killing of two tigers in Amangarh Range. This witness has proved various documents. PW2 Mukesh Singh, Forest Guard, PW3 Jagat Singh Bisht of Dhaila Range and PW4 Rakesh Kumar Bhatt have also corroborated the statements of PW1 Govind Singh Dangi is in their examination-in-chief. PW5 K.S. Rawat prepared site plan and recorded statements of various witnesses. According to him, the place of incident is a declared Tiger Reserve and it is so recorded in the Notification as Page No. 2, Serial No. 3 as Buffer Zone, Dhaila Bhabhar 1-6, which this witness proved as Ext.A17. 8. PW6 Sanjay Kumar Pandey has stated about some call detail records. 9. The revisionist is charged for the offences punishable under Section 2 Sub Section 16 of the Act. This Section defines hunting. The definition clause cannot be related to any penalty clause. 10. The revisionist has also been charged for the offences punishable under Section 9 of the Act, which reads as under: “9. Hunting of wild animals - No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I and II except as provided under Section 11 and Section 12.” 11. As stated hunting is defined under Section 2 (16) of the Act, which reads as follows: “2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: ........................................................................... ........................................................................... (16) “hunting” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes: (a) killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every attempt to do so. As stated hunting is defined under Section 2 (16) of the Act, which reads as follows: “2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: ........................................................................... ........................................................................... (16) “hunting” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes: (a) killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every attempt to do so. (b) capturing, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving or baiting any wild or captive animal and every attempt to do so. (c) injuring or destroying or taking any part of the body of any such animal or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or reptiles, or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles.” 12. It is not the prosecution case that the revisionist was doing any kind of activities so as to bring it within the definition of hunting as defined under Section 2(16) of the Act. Therefore, there is no evidence to substantiate the charge under Section 9 read with 51 of the Act. 13. The revisionist has also been convicted under Section 2(35) of the Act read with Section 51 of the Act. The 2(35) of the Act defines weapon. A definition clause may not be read with a penalty clause. Section 35 of the Act makes the provisions for declaration of National Park. 14. The revisionist has also been charged for the offences under Section 35(8) and 38(v) of the Act. Section 35(8), 38(v) reads as follows: “35. Declaration of National Parks: (1)......................................... (2)......................................... (3)......................................... (4)......................................... (5)......................................... (6)......................................... (7)......................................... (8) The provisions of Sections 27 and 28, Section 30 to 32 (both inclusive), and clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 33, Section 33-A and Section 34 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a National Park as they apply in relation to a sanctuary. 38-V. Tiger Conservation Plan: (1) The State Government shall, on the recommendation of the Tiger Conservation Authority, notify an area as a tiger reserve. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32 and clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 of this Act shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a tiger reserve as they apply in relation to a sanctuary. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32 and clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 of this Act shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a tiger reserve as they apply in relation to a sanctuary. (3) The State Government shall prepare a Tiger Conservation Plan including staff development and deployment plan for the proper management of each area referred to in sub-section (1), so as to ensure: ........................................................................... ...........................................................................” 15. Section 35(8) and 39(v) per se are not any penalty clause or any prohibition, which may be punishable under Section 51 of the Act. 16. The revisionist is also charged for offence under Section 27 of the Act read with Section 51 of the Act. 17. Learned State counsel would submit that the revisionist had entered into a Sanctuary without any permission. Hence, an offence under Section 27 read with Section 51 of the Act is made out. 18. Section 27 of the Act reads as under: “27. Restriction on entry in sanctuary: (1) No person other than: (a) a public servant on duty. (b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer to reside within the limits of the sanctuary. (c) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary. (d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a public highway, and (e) the dependants of the person referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c), shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under Section 28. (2) Every person shall, so long as he resides in the sanctuary, be bound: (a) to prevent the commission, in the sanctuary, of an offence against this Act. (b) where there is reason to believe that any such offence against this Act has been committed in such sanctuary, to help in discovering and arresting the offender. (2) Every person shall, so long as he resides in the sanctuary, be bound: (a) to prevent the commission, in the sanctuary, of an offence against this Act. (b) where there is reason to believe that any such offence against this Act has been committed in such sanctuary, to help in discovering and arresting the offender. (c) to report the death of any wild animal and to safeguard its remains until the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer takes charge thereof; (d) to extinguish any fire in such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information and to prevent from spreading, by any lawful means in his power, any fire within the vicinity of such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information. (e) to assist any Forest Officer, Chief Wild Life Warden, Wild Life Warden or Police Officer demanding his aid for preventing the commission of any offence against this Act or in the investigation of any such offence. (3) No person shall, with intent to cause damage to any boundary-mark of a sanctuary or to cause wrongful gain as defined in the Indian Penal Code, alter, destroy, move or deface such boundary-mark. (4) No person shall tease or molest any wild animal or litter the grounds of sanctuary.” 19. A sanctuary is declared under Section 35 of the Act. The site plans are on record of the trial court. According to the prosecution case, the revisionist, when arrested has revealed that he was involved in the killing of the tigers in the Amangarh Range, which as per the site plan, falls in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The place of arrest has been shown in Fika Saut, which is beyond Dhaila Range 1-B. Which range is it? What are the boundaries of the Tiger Reserves at the place of incident? Ext.A17 has been proved as the notification. According to it, Dhaila Bhabhar 1-6 is a Buffer Zone for Tiger Reserve. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to establish that, in fact, the alleged place of incident falls under the Buffer Zone Dhaila Bhabhar 1-6. As stated, in the site plan Ex A-3, it is adjoining to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court cannot presume merely on the statement of PW5 that the alleged place of incident falls within the Tiger Reserve. There is a full fledged process for declaring a Sanctuary. As stated, in the site plan Ex A-3, it is adjoining to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court cannot presume merely on the statement of PW5 that the alleged place of incident falls within the Tiger Reserve. There is a full fledged process for declaring a Sanctuary. There must be some boundaries. As stated, even as per site plan, the place of incident falls outside Compartment No. 1B Dhaila Range. In which compartment does the place of incident fall? The site plan Ex A-3 does not even show it. It is somewhere in Fika Saut adjoining to compartment 1-B. It creates doubt in the prosecution case. The prosecution has not been able to establish that the alleged place of incident falls within a Sanctuary. There is, in fact, no evidence to it. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 27 read with 51 of the Act against the revisionist. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and orders are bad in the eyes of law. They deserve to be set aside and revision allowed. 20. The revision is allowed. 21. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside. 22. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Sections 2(16), 2(35), 9, 27, 38(v), 35(8) read with 51 of the Act. 23. The revisionist is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 24. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith record be forwarded to the court below for compliance.