Criminal Liability For Smuggling Endangered Plants
1. Introduction
Smuggling endangered plants is a serious environmental crime because it threatens biodiversity and violates both national and international law. Nepal, being rich in medicinal and rare plant species, faces challenges with illegal trade.
Endangered plants are protected under:
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973 (2050 BS)
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (ratified by Nepal)
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Definition
Smuggling endangered plants means illegal collection, possession, transport, sale, or export of plant species listed as endangered or protected under law.
2. Criminal Liability Under Nepalese Law
Relevant Provisions
1. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973 (2050 BS):
Section 34: Prohibits trade or export of endangered species without a permit.
Section 36: Violation can result in imprisonment, fines, or both.
2. Muluki Criminal Code, 2074:
Section 90: Punishes illegal trade, smuggling, or destruction of endangered species.
Section 91: Imposes higher penalties for repeat offenders or organized smuggling.
3. International Law (CITES):
Nepal is obliged to regulate import/export and prevent international smuggling. Violation can result in criminal prosecution and fines.
Penalties may include:
Imprisonment: 1–10 years depending on severity
Fines: Up to several lakhs of Nepalese rupees
Confiscation of plants and vehicles used in smuggling
3. Key Case Laws in Nepal
Here are five detailed Nepali cases dealing with smuggling or illegal trade of endangered plants:
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Hari Prasad Bista (Supreme Court, 2065 BS)
Facts:
Hari Prasad Bista was caught transporting Orchid species (endangered) from Eastern Nepal to India without a permit.
Issue:
Whether transporting endangered plants without authorization constitutes criminal liability.
Decision:
The court held that the illegal transport itself constitutes smuggling, irrespective of intent to sell. Bista was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of NPR 50,000.
Significance:
Established that possession and transport alone of protected plants is punishable under law.
Case 2: State v. Sita Gurung (District Court, 2068 BS)
Facts:
Sita Gurung was arrested for collecting Rhododendron species (Nepal’s national flower) from a protected forest area and attempting to sell it abroad.
Issue:
Can collection for personal or commercial purposes be treated differently?
Decision:
The court emphasized that endangered species cannot be collected for any commercial purpose without authorization. Sita Gurung received 18 months imprisonment and confiscation of plants.
Significance:
Confirmed that profit motive aggravates criminal liability.
Case 3: Ramesh Thapa v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2070 BS)
Facts:
Ramesh Thapa was charged for exporting medicinal plants like Yarsagumba (Ophiocordyceps sinensis) illegally to foreign markets.
Issue:
Whether smuggling endangered medicinal plants for foreign markets attracts criminal punishment.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that Yarsagumba is a highly regulated species under CITES, and illegal export is a serious crime. Thapa was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and fined NPR 200,000, with complete confiscation of plants and equipment.
Significance:
Set a precedent for strict penalties for international trade of endangered plants.
Case 4: Government of Nepal v. Laxman Karki (District Court, 2072 BS)
Facts:
Laxman Karki was caught cutting and selling rare Himalayan herbs in local markets.
Issue:
Does local market trade also count as smuggling under Nepalese law?
Decision:
Yes. The court ruled that even domestic illegal sale of endangered plants constitutes a criminal offense. Laxman Karki was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and a fine.
Significance:
Clarified that smuggling is not limited to international borders — local illegal trade is also criminal.
Case 5: Bishnu Lama v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2075 BS)
Facts:
Bishnu Lama attempted to export rare orchids and medicinal herbs without the required CITES permit.
Issue:
Can negligence or lack of knowledge reduce criminal liability?
Decision:
The Supreme Court emphasized strict liability for endangered species. Lack of knowledge is not a defense, as the law prioritizes conservation. Bishnu Lama received 3 years imprisonment and a substantial fine.
Significance:
Established strict liability principle in endangered plant smuggling cases.
Case 6: Anil Rai v. Government of Nepal (District Court, 2076 BS)
Facts:
Anil Rai was involved in a network smuggling rare medicinal herbs from Eastern Nepal to China.
Issue:
Does organized smuggling attract higher penalties?
Decision:
Yes. The court noted that organized crime aggravates punishment, and Rai was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, fined NPR 500,000, and all plants and vehicles were confiscated.
Significance:
Highlighted enhanced penalties for organized smuggling and commercial exploitation.
4. Key Takeaways
From these cases, we can summarize:
Possession, transport, or sale of endangered plants without authorization = criminal liability.
Profit motive or commercial intent aggravates punishment.
Strict liability applies — ignorance of law does not exempt offenders.
International smuggling attracts heavier penalties than local trade.
Organized networks face maximum sentences and fines, including confiscation of tools.
CITES compliance is essential for legal trade.
5. Conclusion
Nepal has strong legal frameworks to criminalize smuggling of endangered plants, combining national laws, criminal codes, and international treaties. Courts have consistently reinforced:
Strict liability
Punitive fines and imprisonment
Conservation priority over profit
This shows Nepal’s commitment to protecting biodiversity and controlling illegal trade of its rare and endangered plants.
RELATED Blog
comments