The Allahabad High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision applications filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
The court observed that the animals have emotions, feelings, and senses similar to a human being; the only difference is that the animals cannot speak and therefore, though their rights are recognized under the law, they cannot assert the same.
Brief Facts:
Petitioners are claiming to be the owner of some cattle. The informant, who is a police officer, had received information that animals are being illegally transported in the trucks. The informant, with the other officers, went to Katol Naka. He intercepted the trucks and found the cattle.
It is the case of the prosecution that the animals (buffaloes) were being transported in inhuman conditions. The animals were dumped in the vehicles. The animals were subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering. The transportation of the cattle was contrary to the provisions of law and rules. Therefore, the informant/ police officer by drawing panchanama on the spot of the factual situation, seized all the animals in both the crimes.
The Investigating Officer handed over interim custody of the animals to respondent no.2 - Maa Foundation Goushala, a registered trust. The petitioners applied for custody of the animals. Learned Magistrate found that no case was made out to hand over custody of the animals to the applicants, and therefore, rejected the applications. The petitioners preferred revision applications which also came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petitions.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners being the owners of the animals cannot be denied custody of the animals during the pendency of the trial. He further submitted that there is no prima facie material to satisfy, at this stage, that the animals were subjected to cruelty. He argued that there is no specific bar under the law for handing over custody of the animals to the petitioners, who are the owners of the animals.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that prima facie, a case for the commission of the offence has been made out and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get custody of the animals. He argued that respondent no.2 is registered with the Charity Commissioner and therefore, is competent to take care of the animals handed over to it by police.
Further, the Counsel said that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioners cannot be allowed to dispose of the animals in any manner. In view of the cruel conditions in which the animals were transported, would disentitle the petitioners to get custody of the animals during the pendency of the trial. The petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that they are equipped with proper shed, fodder, etc. for maintenance and care of the animals.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the transportation of buffaloes was not within the permitted limits or capacities, and there was non-compliance of other provisions and rules. It is seen that the milching buffaloes were transported in a very cruel condition. The Court noted that animals have emotions, feelings, and senses similar to human beings. The only difference is that the animals cannot speak and therefore, though their rights are recognized under the law, they cannot assert the same.
Further, the Court said that while deciding such a matter, the prime consideration must be the welfare, protection, and maintenance of the animals. The Court has to see who is comparatively better suited and equipped to provide the necessary comfort and protection to the animals.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, allowing the petition, held that the petitioners were not entitled to get custody of the animals.
Case Title: Ansar Ahmad & Ors. v State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G. A. Sanap
Case no.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 708 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Laique Hussain
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. H. D. Dubey
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
