The division judge bench of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli of the apex court in the case of Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala Vs State of Maharashtra and Others held that the appellant has shown its willingness to accept the interim custody of the cattle. In view of the fact that private respondents were prima facie carrying the cattle in cruel conditions without a valid permit, the cattle would be safe in the custody of the appellant instead of the private respondents.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the truck was found carrying 18 cattle and the respondent was unable to provide any relevant permits. Therefore, the cattle were seized and the FIR was registered for offenses punishable under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 19951 and Section 6 of the Amendment Act 1995 (brought into force on 4 March 2015) Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act 19762, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and other allied provisions. The second to eighth respondents claimed to be the owner of the seized cattle and filed the application seeking interim custody of the seized cattle. Thereafter, the appellant also filed an application for interim custody of the cattle till the conclusion of the trial under the proviso to Section 8(b) of the Maharashtra Act and Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.
The JMFC denied custody to the private respondents and observed that the custody would be safe in the hands of the appellant. The decision of the session judge was challenged before he high court and the high court upheld the order of the Sessions Judge granting custody to the private respondents by relying on a decision of this Court in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Another v. Chakram Moraji Nat and Others. The High Court noted that prima facie, the material on the record indicated that the cattle were being subjected to cruel conditions for transportation since as many as eighteen cattle were loaded into one truck. The High Court further held that the decision of the JMFC to grant interim custody to the appellant on the basis of the Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act without taking into consideration the relevant circumstances was clearly perverse and arbitrary. Hence, on these grounds, the order of the Sessions Court in revision was not interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The apex court held that the High Court upon evaluating the circumstances in which the cattle were being transported arrived at a prima facie conclusion that as many as eighteen cattle were being transported in one vehicle. The High Court has also noted that this constituted cruelty as it violated Rule 56 of the Transport of Animal Rules 1978 framed in accordance with the enabling provisions of Section 38 of the PCA Act. The amended provisions of the Maharashtra Act have received the assent of the President. The intention of the legislature in incorporating the proviso to Section 8(3) was to give effect to the object of the Maharashtra Act to preserve and protect cows, bulls, and bullocks useful for milch, breeding, draught, or agricultural purposes. The proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act provides for handing over of the seized cow, bull, or bullock to the nearest gosadan, goshala, pinjrapole, hinsa nivaran sangh or such other animal welfare organization willing to accept such custody. In the present case, the appellant was willing and ready to accept custody of the seized cattle. In light of the prima facie observation that the private respondents were in violation of the Transport of Animal Rules 1978, it was incumbent upon the High Court to ensure that the seized cattle would be properly preserved and maintained until the conclusion of the trial proceedings. The appellant has shown its willingness to accept the interim custody of the cattle. In view of the fact that private respondents were prima facie carrying the cattle in cruel conditions without a valid permit, the JMFC rightly concluded that the cattle would be safe in the custody of the appellant instead of the private respondents. In view of the above findings, the ultimate direction which was issued by the High Court was contrary to the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act and would have to be set aside, while restoring the order of the JMFC.
CASE NAME- Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala Vs State of Maharashtra and Others
CITATION- Criminal Appeal No 1719 of 2022
CORUM- Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
DATE- 30.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
