Bombay High Court
Mohammad Rajik S/O Mohammad Akil vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Khandala ... on 10 March, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1
31CriWP886.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 886/2021
(Mohammad Rajik S/o Mohammad Akil Vs. State of Maharashtra &
anr.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Mr. Sk. Sabahatullah, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. H. D. Dubey, APP for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. M. P. Kariya, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM :- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED :- 10.03.2022
Heard Mr. Sk. Aabahatullah, learned counsel
for applicant and learned APP for respondent No.
1/State.
2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order
dated 23.09.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Pusad on an application under Section 457 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking interim custody
of the cattle i.e. 16 bullocks and 3 calves and the vehicle
being TATA Truck No. MH-22/N-0750, seized by the
Police Station Khandala Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal in
Crime 243/ 2021, whereby the said application has been
rejected in so far as the bullocks and calves are concerned
and the petitioner is directed to execute the bond within
3 days from the date of the order as per Rule 5(1) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of
Case Property Animals) Rules 2017 (for short 'Rules
Gohane
31CriWP886.21.odt
2017') and in case the bond is not so executed, the
seized cattle shall stand forfeited to the objector. The
petitioner was also directed to pay a sum Rs. 200 per day
per cattle towards the daily maintenance of the seized
cattle and the truck was to be held as security as per the
provisions of Rule 5(4) Rules 2017. It was also further
directed that in case of failure to execute the bond or to
pay the amount towards the daily maintenance of seized
cattle, then in that case the local authority is directed to
undertake the costs involved and recover the same as
arrears of land revenue.
3. This order was challenged by the petitioner
before learned Sessions Court by way of revision, who by
judgment dated 20.10.2021 has dismissed the revision
holding that the order passed by the Learned JMFC ,
indicated proper exercise of discretion.
4. Th petitioner challenges the aforesaid orders
and contended that since the license was issued to the
petitioner as a broker by the APMC Murtizapur for sale
and purchase of the bullocks and calves, the petitioner
was entitled to deal in those animals. He however admits
that the amount as directed by the learned JMFC towards
maintenance of the seized cattle which has been placed in
the custody of the respondent No. 2, has not been
deposited, on the contrary, he claims the reduction of the
same amount to Rs. 20 per day per animal. He further
contends that all the animals were procured by him for
Gohane
31CriWP886.21.odt
the purpose of agriculture and cultivation not for any
business or sale or for the purpose of slaughter. He
therefore submits that bullocks as well as the vehicle be
released in the custody of the petitioner.
vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the
impugned order does not require any interference. My
attention is invited to the Notification dated 02.07.2019
issued by the Maharashtra Animal Welfare Board. It is
contended that Rs. 200/- per day per animal is minimum
fixed by the Board as being required for proper
nourishment of the animal and therefore, the same
would govern the field and the learned JMFC has rightly
directed deposit of that amount for the purpose of
maintenance of the animal. Further relying upon Rule 5
(4) of the Rules 2017. He submits that in case such bond
is not executed for the cost of keeping the animals while
pending the litigation, the vehicle involved in the offence
has to be held as a security which has been so directed by
the Magistrate. It is also submitted that though by an
order dated 11.07.2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court had
noted that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal
(Regulation of Live Stocks, Markets) Rules, 2017 and the
prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance
of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 were stayed by the
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, however, by
subsequent order 11.08.2017, the direction contend in
the order 11.07.2017, in so far as the Rules 2017 were
Gohane
31CriWP886.21.odt
vacated. In view thereof, it is contended that the said
Rules 2017 under which the order has been passed by the
learned JMFC are still in force. It is contended that the
intention of the petitioner not to maintain the animals, in
case they are handed to him is manifest by his seeking
reduction of the amount of maintenance from Rs 200/- to
Rs. 20/- as no animal can be maintained at that cost. It is
submitted that petition needs to dismissed.
6. Considering the above rival contention and
perusal of the impugned order of the learned JMFC and
Judgment of the learned Sessions Court, it is apparent
that the question whether the animals which admittedly
were purchased for the purpose of trade by the
petitioner, were to be used for the purpose of sale,
slaughter or otherwise is a question which will have to
be determined by the learned JMFC during the trial of
the proceeding. It is admitted position that that animals
have been given in the custody of the respondent No. 2
and the respondent No. 2 is taking care of them. The
petitioner has not complied the direction of the learned
JFMC, by which the cost of maintenance of the animals
have been directed to be deposited. Rather on the
contrary, a plea is now sought to be raised for reduction
of the amount of maintenance from Rs. 200/- per day to
Rss 20/- per day which is contradictory to what has
been fixed as the minimum cost of maintenance as per
the Notification dated 27.02.2019 issued by the
Maharashtra Animal Welfare Board. Under Rule 5(4) of
Gohane
31CriWP886.21.odt
Rules 2017, which are presently in force, in view of the
clarification of the Hon'ble Apex Court date 11.08.2017
in WP (C) No. 422, 419, 499, 497 of 2017, the vehicle
has to stand as security for the purpose of cost of
maintenance which admittedly has not been paid or
deposited by the petitioner.
7. Considering above all these facts, I am not
inclined to interfere in the well reasoned order of the
learned JMFC and the Judgment of learned Sessions
Court, considering which I do not find any merit in the
petition and accordingly stands dismissed.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J)
Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA
JITENDRA BHARAT
BHARAT GOHANE
GOHANE Date:
2022.03.10
19:02:18
+0530
Gohane
