Abdul Hafeez S/O. Shaikh Kareem vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8026 Bom

                                         1                                      jg.apl 148.17.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                 Criminal Application (APL) No. 148 of 2017

Abdul Hafeez s/o. Shaikh Kareem,
Aged about 62 years, Occ : Business, 
R/o. Pagalkhana Square, Chindwara Road, 
Nagpur.                                                                    .... Applicant

      //  Versus //

State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer, 
Jaripatka Police Station, Nagpur.                                     .... Non-applicant

Shri Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Shri S. G. Joshi, Advocate for 
the applicant 
Shri S. A. Ashirgade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/non-
applicant

                                            CORAM      :  ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
                                                              M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                                DATE   : 11-10-2017.

JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.)

The criminal application is admitted and heard finally at the

stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the present application, the applicant has challenged First

Information Report/Crime No. 2232/2016 registered at Police Station,

Jaripatka, Nagpur. It is submitted that the applicant is permanent

resident of Pagalkhana Square, Chindwara Road, Nagpur. The applicant

.....2/-

2 jg.apl 148.17.odt

is possessing immovable property at the above mentioned address. The

applicant is a businessman.

3. The applicant is registered dealer of hide and skin of dead

animals and carries on the business from his godown in the name and

style as M/s. Baba Traders. Certificate of registration is issued by the

Sales Tax Department and copy of said certificate dated 9-1-2002 is

annexed with this application at Annexure P-2. The applicant is doing

the said business since long. The applicant owns huge godown. Similar

persons, who are engaged in the said business, many times requested the

applicant for storing their quantity of hide and skin on rental basis. The

applicant due to relations did not ask for any receipt or documents as to

how they have procured the said quantity or skin and hide of dead

animals. Therefore only for this reason, such a huge quantity of hide and

skin of dead animals was found in the godown of the applicant.

4. It is submitted that on 25-11-2016, PSI Dorlikar came to the

godown of the applicant and searched the godown of the applicant.

PSI Dorlikar and police staff found 4200 pieces of hide and skin of dead

animals as well as 1500 tins of processed fat stored in the godown. The

applicant was asked to produce the papers for keeping such huge

quantity of hide and skin of dead animals. As the papers produced by the

.....3/-

3 jg.apl 148.17.odt

applicant were not proper, the non-applicant, police station arrested the

applicant and the truck parked in front of the godown was seized. The

non-applicant, police station without bothering to find out whether the

offences were made out against the applicant, registered First

Information Report vide Crime No. 2232/2016 against the applicant.

5. It is submitted that the applicant has not committed any

offence as alleged in the first information report. The applicant is not

involved in the offence of cow slaughtering and hence has not committed

any offence under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment)

Act, 1995. The applicant submitted that no objection certificate issued by

the Deputy Collector, Nagpur dated 15-7-1999 was produced.

6. It is submitted that the applicant has nothing to do with the

alleged offences. He is falsely implicated. The applicant has not

committed any offence as alleged in the First Information Report,

therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the First Information

Report/Crime No. 2232/2016.

7. Heard Shri Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the

applicant. He has relied on the judgment in Criminal Application (APL)

No. 664/2016 delivered by this Court to which one of us (M.G.

.....4/-

                                            4                                      jg.apl 148.17.odt

Giratkar,   J)   was   party.     Shri   Mardikar,   learned   Senior   Counsel   has

submitted that no offence is committed by the applicant as per the

provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act. The act of non-

applicant of registering crime against him for the offence is illegal and

first information report is liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Ashirgade.

He has strongly objected the application and submitted that action taken

by police is legal and proper, hence, application is liable to be dismissed.

9. Report was lodged by PSI Dorlikar on 25-11-2016. It is

alleged in the report by PSI Dorlikar that he received secret information,

therefore, he along with police staff went to the godown of applicant. He

inspected the said godown and found total 4200 pieces of hide and skin

of dead animals and 1500 tins of processed fats stored. On his report,

crime for the offence punishable under Section 429 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9 and 11 of the Maharashtra

Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as

"the Act") came to be registered.

10. From the perusal of Section 9 and 11 of the Act, it is clear

that Section 9 is in respect of the punishment about the contravention of

.....5/-

5 jg.apl 148.17.odt

any of the provisions of the Act, "on conviction, be punished with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine

which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both". Section 11 is

in respect of attempts to commit any such offence shall be deemed to

have committed that offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with

the punishment provided for such offence under Section 9.

11. Section 5A, 5B, 5C, 9, 9A and 11 of the Act are relevant. The

provisions are reproduced as under :

5A - (1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported cow, bull or bullock from any place within the State to any place outside the State for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be so slaughtered.

(2) No person shall export or cause to be exported outside the State of Maharashtra cow, bull or bullock for the purpose of slaughter either directly or through his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf, in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be slaughtered.

5B - No person shall purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or offer to purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of any cow, bull or bullock for slaughter or knowing or having reason to believe that such cow, bull or bullock shall be slaughtered.

5C - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull or bullock slaughtered in

.....6/-

6 jg.apl 148.17.odt

contravention of the provisions of this Act.

5D- ..........

9. After Section 9 of the Principal Act, the following sections shall be inserted namely -

9A - Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sections 5C, 5D or s shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to two thousand rupees."

11. - Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act or attempt to commit any such offence shall be deemed to have committed that offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with the punishment provided for such offence under section 9 [or Section 9A].

12. From the perusal of first information report lodged by PSI

Dorlikar, it is clear that the applicant has not committed any offence in

respect of slaughtering of any animals. From the perusal of record and

submissions of applicant, it is clear that he is doing the business of hide

and skin of dead animals, therefore, applicant cannot be punished under

Section 9 and 11 of the Act. Business of hide and skin is not prohibited

under the said Act.

13. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, if

the first information report prima facie does not disclose any offence,

then this Court can quash the first information report.

.....7/-

7 jg.apl 148.17.odt

14. From the perusal of first information report, it is clear that

transporting/doing business of hide and skin of dead animals is not

prohibited. Therefore, offence punishable under the Act cannot be made

out. Hence, First Information Report registered against the applicant is

liable to be quashed and set aside.

15. Hence, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause (A)

and quash and set aside First Information Report/Crime No. 2232/2016

registered against the applicant by Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur. No

order as to costs.

         (M.G. GIRATKAR, J.)               (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)




wasnik




                                                                                         ...../-