Bombay High Court
Govindyan Anusandhan Kendra ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 8 September, 2017
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
1 wp499.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.499 OF 2015
Govindyan Anusandhan Kendra (Gorakshan),
Deolapar, Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur,
through its Authorized representative
Shri Mahesh s/o Madhukar Chole,
aged about 30 years, occupation :
Social Worker, r/o Deolapar, Post
Deolapar, Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police
Station, Ramtek, District Nagpur.
2) Mohd. Shahid Khan s/o Ab. Razzak
Khan, aged about 40 years,
occupation : business,
r/o Khawasa, Tahsil Kurahi,
District Seoni (M.P.) ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri R.M. Daga, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. S. Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.
----------------
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 08, 2017
2 wp499.15
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri Daga, learned Counsel for petitioner, and
Ms. Jachak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.
None appears for respondent no.2 though served. Even on the earlier
date, none was present for respondent no.2 and with a view to give
opportunity to defend the petition on merits, the petition was adjourned
for today. Despite that, nobody appears for respondent no.2 even today.
2) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 16/6/2015 passed
by learned trial Court granting custody of 20 bullocks to respondent no.2
on his executing a supratnama bond of Rs.5 lakhs and by imposing
conditions not to sell animals and to produce the same as and when
directed during pendency of trial.
3) Petitioner is a registered public trust having Public Trust
No.MAH/155/07, which is dedicated for the welfare of animals and
engaged in taking care, preservation and protection of animals. It is noted
that on 8/6/2015 report came to be lodged by A.S.I. Kawduji Zade that
while he was on patrolling duty with other staff, they intercepted one
truck bearing Registration No. MH-22/H-0528, which was found carrying
cattle from Jabalpur to Nagpur. The total cattle were 20 in number and
they were found being illegally transported by respondent no.2 without
valid permission from the Authorities including R.T.O. and in
3 wp499.15
contravention of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 and, therefore, offences came to be registered under Section 11(a),
(d) and (n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and
Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act vide Crime No. 3023/2015.
4) Thereafter, on an application made by respondent no.2,
impugned order came to be passed, thereby granting custody of seized
animals in his possession. It is noted that application made by petitioner
was rejected, however, on an application made by respondent no.2,
learned trial Court released the cattle on supratnama in his favour
observing that respondent no.2 is owner of the cattle. Shri Daga, learned
Counsel for petitioner, has submitted that by transporting 20 cattle in one
vehicle, they were found to be travelling by providing cruelty to them,
which aspect is also not considered by learned trial Court. According to
learned Counsel for petitioner, after seizure of cattle was effected, they
were given in the custody of petitioner Institute having sufficient
infrastructure to take care of them and as such, cattle are under due
protection. It is, therefore, submitted that pending trial, custody of such
animals should be kept with petitioner in their interest.
5) On perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that learned
Magistrate has not considered provisions of the Maharashtra Animal
Preservation Act, 1976 as amended in the year 2015 by which pending
trial, custody of seized cattle is required to be handed over to the nearest
4 wp499.15
Goshala, Gosadan, Panjrapole, Hinsa Nivaran Sangh or such other Animal
Welfare Organizations willing to accept custody of animals. 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 while from the facts
involved in the present petition, it is found that 20 cattle were being
transported in a truck at one time.
6) This Court after considering facts as aforesaid, had granted
stay to the impugned order dated 16/6/2015 on 22/6/2015, which is
in force today. Apart from above facts, it is noted that there is no valid
certificate issued by Veterinary Surgeon certifying that the cattle were in a
fit condition to be transported and were not suffering from any disease,
which is in 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.
5 wp499.15
7) Admittedly, respondent no.2 has not chosen to defend the
petition and thus, there is nothing to establish that he is in a position to
make necessary arrangement for preservation of cattle, custody of which is
granted to him by the impugned order. The petition is thus liable to be
allowed.
8) In the result, impugned order dated 16/6/2015
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek in
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.126/2015 directing release of
cattle in custody of respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. Needless to
say that custody of cattle involved in this case shall remain with petitioner
till conclusion of trial. The petition is accordingly allowed.
9) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
khj
