Bombay High Court
Bhavani Bahudhesiya Gau ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 23 August, 2017
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
1 wp484.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.484 OF 2017
Bhavani Bahudhesiya Gau Surakshan Sounstha,
Pimpadgaon-Sadak, Reg. No. Mah. 115/12(B) &
Trust No. F/14420(B), at Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara, through its Secretary
Shri Nanaji s/o Ntthu Jivatode, aged about
32 years, occupation : cultivator, r/o
Pimpadgaon-Sadak, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Tiroda, District Bhandara.
2) Mohd. Safiq s/o Mohd. Sharif Qureshi,
aged about major, occupation : Private,
r/o 41, Bhaipura, Sudarshan Nagar,
Badi Mandi, Kamptee, at present r/o
Teka, Nai Basti, Azad Nagar, Tahsil
and District Nagpur. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri R.M.Daga, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. S. Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.
----------------
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : AUGUST 23, 2017
2 wp484.17
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
Shri Daga, learned Counsel for petitioner and Ms. Jachak, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. None for respondent
no.2 though served. Record reveals that even on the earlier date, none
was present for respondent no.2 and matter was adjourned for today with
a view to give one more opportunity to said respondent to defend the
petition on merits. Despite that, nobody appears for respondent no.2.
2) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 30/5/2017 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tirora in Miscellaneous
Criminal Application No. 56/2017 granting custody of 20 bullocks to
respondent no.2 on supratnama on his executing indemnity bond of
rupees two lakhs and on imposing conditions to furnish details of cattle to
Police and to produce cattle as and when directed.
3) It is found that on 16/5/2017 during night while patrolling
Police found truck bearing Registration No. MH-40/Y-1186 having loaded
20 cattle, i.e. bullocks therein and the vehicle was intercepted as it was
apprehended that cattle were being transported for the purpose of
slaughtering. Accordingly, offences punishable under Section 11(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5-A, 5-B, 6
3 wp484.17
and 9 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 came to be
registered vide Crime No. 215/2017. Custody of these cattle is found
given in possession of respondent no.2 by the impugned order. Perusal of
the impugned order reveals that learned Magistrate did not consider
provisions of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 as amended in
2015, as according to the amended provisions, pending trial, custody of
seized cattle shall be handed over to nearest Gosadan, Goshala,
Panjrapole, Hinsa Nivaran Sangh or such other Animal Welfare
Organizations willing to accept custody of animals.
4) Prosecution has, as per its reply, come out with a case that as
per directions of learned trial Court, Investigating Agency had visited
petitioner Goshala to obtain photographs of seized bullocks to identify
them and to draw detailed panchanama before releasing the livestock. It,
therefore, appears that after seizure of cattle, same were given in the
custody of petitioner and as per directions of learned Magistrate,
Investigating Officer had drawn panchanama. According to Rule 56(c) of
the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, there is restriction to carry more
than six cattle in a vehicle at a time and from the reply it is also found that
President of petitioner Goshala had instructed respondent no.2 about said
fact. However, respondent no.2 expressed his inability to carry and
transport the cattle and, therefore, cattle were kept in the custody of
petitioner Goshala.
4 wp484.17
5) This Court after considering facts as aforesaid, granted stay to
effect and operation of the impugned order dated 30/5/2017 on
15/6/2017, which is in force till today. Apart from above, Shri Daga,
learned Counsel for petitioner, has submitted that there was no valid
certificate obtained from Veterinary Surgeon to the effect that the cattle
were in a fit condition to travel and were not suffering from any disease,
which again is breach of Rules 47(a) & (b), 96 and 98 of the Transport of
Animals Rules, 1978. It is pointed out that contravention of aforesaid
Rules is made separately punishable under Section 38(3) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Moreover, even if it would
be the case of respondent no.2 that he is owner of said cattle and had
purchased the same, there could be no identification mentioned in any
such receipt, which should co-relate animals with such purchase by
respondent no.2 as perusal of such receipt would not ascertain whether
cattle mentioned in the purchase receipt of cattle involved in the present
proceedings are one and same and as such, even if any such purchase
receipt is relied by respondent no.2, that cannot establish his case any
further.
6) Having considered facts as aforesaid and in the absence of
respondent no.2 establishing any arrangement made by him for
preservation of cattle, impugned order directing to hand over custody of
5 wp484.17
cattle to respondent no.2 does not stand for any reason as it is noted that
cattle were transported in total violation of welfare law enacted for
animals and since this aspect is found ignored by learned Magistrate, the
petition is liable to succeed.
7) In the result, impugned order dated 30/5/2017 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tirora in Miscellaneous Criminal
Application No.56/2017 directing release of cattle in custody of
respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. Needless to say that 20 bullocks
shall remain with petitioner till conclusion of trial. The petition is
accordingly allowed.
8) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
khj
