Bombay High Court
Shri Go-Vigyan Anusandhan ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. P.S. Kalamna And ... on 19 October, 2016
Bench: I.K. Jain
1 judg. apl 72.11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Application (APL) No.72 of 2011
Shri Go-Vigyan Anusandhan Kendra,
Deolapar, Nagpur, through its authorized
representative Shri Ravindra s/o Marotrao
Gaikwad, aged about 35 years,
R/o. Kamdhenu Bhavan, Pandit Bachhraj
Vyas Chowk, Chitar Oli, Mahal,
Nagpur-09. .... Applicant
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra,
through P.S. Kalamna, Nagpur.
2] Mohd. Asfak s/o Abdul Rahim Qureshi,
Aged about 46 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o.-Guddigodam, Back side of Masjid,
Nagpur. .... Respondents
Shri Khajanchi, Advocate for applicant.
Shri P.S. Tembhare, Assistant Public Prosecutor for
respondent no.1.
None for respondent no.2.
Coram : Kum. Indira Jain, J.
Dated : 19th October, 2016.
O R A L J U D G M E N T [Per Kum. Indira Jain, J.]
2 judg. apl 72.11.odt
By this application applicant is challenging
the order dated 02-02-2011 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Misc.
Criminal Application No.150 of 2011 thereby
releasing 23 cows and bulls seized in Crime No.
3068 of 2011 registered under Section 11(A), (D),
(E), (I), (H) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960 read with Sections 39, 41 and 192 of
the Motor Vehicles Act by Kalamana Police in
favour of the accused.
2] The facts giving rise to the present
application may be stated in brief as under :-
A report was lodged at Police Station
Kalamana, District Nagpur that some cattle were
illegally transported in a Metador without due care
of providing them food and safety.
On the basis of complaint crime was
registered and 23 cows and bulls were seized by
Kalamana Police. Pending investigation accused
moved an application for release of cattle on the
ground that he purchased cows and bulls seized
by Police and he is the owner thereof.
3 judg. apl 72.11.odt
3] On hearing the parties trial Court allowed
the application filed by accused and directed the
investigating authority to handover cattle i.e.
seized 23 cows and bulls to the accused on
executing indemnity bond of Rs.3 lacs. It is this
order which is the subject matter of the instant
application.
4]
Shri Khajanchi, learned Counsel for applicant
submitted that applicant had filed an application
bearing Criminal Application No.166 of 2011 for
releasing cows and bulls seized in crime and
handing over the custody to applicant-Go-Vigyan
Kendra but the same was kept pending and the
trial Court instead of deciding both the
applications by common order proceeded to
decide the application filed by accused. Learned
Counsel submits that learned Magistrate ought to
have considered that proper arrangements for
food and safety of the cattle were not made and
from the First Information Report it is revealed
that cattle were kept totally in unhygienic
condition. Applicant expressed an apprehension
that cattle were being transported for
4 judg. apl 72.11.odt
slaughtering. A grievance is made that all these
important aspects were not at all looked into and
impugned order which is ex-facie contrary to the
provisions of law and rules came to be passed.
5] None appears for respondent no.2 even on
second call. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
supports the contentions raised on behalf of
applicant.
ig By reply affidavit it is submitted on
behalf of the State that accused was intercepted
at Pardi Naka at around 01.45 p.m. He had no
permit to transport 23 cattle in a Metador. He
could not show R.T.O. permission to carry 23 cattle
in a Metador. According to respondent no.1
provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
and the Rules thereunder have been violated by
accused and since he could not provide proper
food and safety to the cattle seized from him it
would be appropriate that the cattle should
remain in the custody of Go-Vigyan Kendra.
6] By our order dated 04-02-2011 ad-interim
relief was granted and the cattle remained in the
custody of applicant. Learned Counsel submits
5 judg. apl 72.11.odt
that even today 23 cows and bulls are in the
custody of applicant.
7] It appears from the impugned order that
accused produced some receipts to indicate that
he is the owner of cattle seized and based on
receipts order to release the cattle in favour of
accused came to be passed. The very fact that 23
cows and bulls were being carried in one Metador
speaks a volumes at this stage to show that
accused did not care about the health, safety and
protection of the cattle.
8] Needless to mention here that provisions of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Rules
thereunder will have to be strictly adhered to
when it comes to health, shelter, safety and
protection of animals. In this connection learned
Counsel for applicant vehemently placed reliance
on the decision of this Court in
Deorao s/o Sadsashivji Navghare v State of
Maharashtra and another[2010 ALL MR (Cri) 45].
9] In the light of the above this Court finds that
6 judg. apl 72.11.odt
the order passed by the learned Magistrate
releasing the cattle in favour of accused only on
the basis of receipts is unsustainable in law.
Hence the following order :-
(a) Criminal Application No.72 of 2011
is allowed.
(b) Impugned order dated 02-02-2011
passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal
Application No.150 of 2011 is
quashed and set aside.
(c) Interim order passed on 04-02-2011
by this Court to continue pending
criminal proceedings before the
Trial Court if final report is filed by
the investigating agency.
(d) Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
