The Bombay High Court opined that Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 lays down mandatory requirements for transporting livestock in a vehicle.
In the instant case, the Petitioners, owners of animals (Buffaloes) violated the rules of both the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978. Further, the number of animals in each truck was more than what is statutorily prescribed and hence, the High Court refused to grant custody to the owners of the animals.
Brief Facts:
The present writ petitions have been filed as the Learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer of the Petitioners for handing over custody of seized animals (buffaloes) in a case registered for offences punishable under Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Brief Background:
The Prosecution alleged that a police officer was informed that animals were transported illegally in the trucks in inhumane conditions. The police officers seized all the animals in the crimes and handed interim custody to a registered trust (Respondent No.2).
The Petitioners were not the Accused in the crimes and had applied for custody and alleged that they had a license for the purchase and sale of the animals.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was contended that the Petitioners had a valid license to purchase and sell animals from APMC Market.
Further, it was argued that some of the buffaloes were milching and by not handing over the custody, the Petitioners were denied the income from milching.
Contentions of the Respondent No.2:
It was contended that the transportation of animals was violative of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
Further, it was alleged that the animals were subjected to cruelty and therefore, custody could not be granted to the Petitioners.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978 and opined that in the instant case, the valid certificate of a qualified Veterinary Surgeon for the fitness of the animals was not obtained by the owners. Further, the animals in the truck were more than what is prescribed in the Rules. As per Rule 56, only 6 cattle could have been there in one truck. There was no arrangement for water, fodder and first aid in the trucks.
It was opined that Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 lays down mandatory requirements for transporting livestock in a vehicle.
The Bench further propounded that the animals have emotions, feelings, and senses like that of humans and the only difference is that the animals cannot speak/assert their rights. Therefore, the cases pertaining to cruelty of animals have to be dealt with more sensitivity.
It was also held that the primacy has to be given to the welfare, protection and maintenance of the animals. Therefore, what has to be seen is who is better equipped to provide for the comfort of the animals. In the instant case, Respondent No.2 assured to provide for the animals and hence, custody to the Petitioners, the owners of the animals was denied.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned findings, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Ansar Ahmad & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors. with other connected matters
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.A. Sanap
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 708 of 2022 with other connected matters
Advocate for Petitioners: Adv. Mr. Laique Hussain
Advocates for Respondents: Adv. Mr. H.D. Dubey, Mr. D.R. Galande
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
