Search the Internet           Tips

Court allows prosecution to go ahead
with poaching case against Salman Khan

Taking cognisance of a challan filed by the Forest Department, a local court in Jodhpur Thursday allowed the prosecution to initiate proceedings under the Wildlife Protection Act against Bollywood stars Salman Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Tabu, Sonali Bendre and Neelam for allegedly hunting protected wild animals.

Additional civil and judicial magistrate Jai Singh formally took cognisance of the case, for which a challan was filed by the Forest Department in June this year. With this, the stage has been set for prosecution of the tinsel stars in the poaching case.

The accused will now be tried in the court under Sections 2(16), 9/51 and 9/52 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972.

This is the fourth case against Salman, main accused in the poaching cases. Other cases under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act are being heard in various courts in Jodhpur.

The additional civil and judicial magistrate accepted the plea by Forest Department counsel N K Sankhala that there were sufficient grounds for prosecuting the accused.

The filmstars were arrested for poaching of black bucks and chinkaras in October 1998 when they were in the desert city of Jodhpur for shooting for Suraj Barjatya's movie Hum Saath Saath Hain.

Although the others stars were released on bail immediately after arrest, main accused Salman had to remain behind bars for almost a week before getting bail in four cases from local courts.

The actors and actresses indulged in poaching in Mathania in Luni tehsil in Jodhpur district, where they were chased by villagers - Bishnois- who consider black bucks and chinkaras sacred.

Villagers later filed written complaints against them, following which the filmstars were taken into custody.

Counsel Hastimal Saraswat, representing Salman, opposed the prosecution as the first information report was actually registered on October 8, 1998 but was shown in the record as registered on October 2.

He contended that Sonali, Tabu and Neelam were not identified in the FIR that described them only as three girls.

However, the advocate for the prosecution argued that statements of witnesses prima facie prove the criminal act.

The prosecution submitted a 339-page chargesheet containing 116 documents and a list of 51 witnesses before the court.

Tell us what you think of this report