Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam
2022 Latest Caselaw 4976 Gua

                                                         Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010201882022




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                      Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./492/2022

         BADRUL HUSSAIN LASKAR AND 3 ORS.
         S/O LATE ALIM UDDIN LASKAR
         R/O VILL/TOWN GOBINDAPUR PART-I,
         P.S. SONAI (OP), SUB-DIVN. SILCHAR
         DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM (OWNER OF BUFFALOES)

         2: RAJON UDDIN LASKAR
          S/O NIZAM UDDIN LASKAR
         R/O VILL/TOWN UTTAR KRISHNAPUR PART-IV
          P.S. SILCHAR SADAR GHUNGOOR (OP)
          SUB-DIVN- SILCHAR
          DIST. CACHAR
          ASSAM
         (OWNER OF THE BUFFALOES)

         3: AMIR HUSSAIN BORBHUIYA
          S/O ASAB UDDIN BORBHUIYA

         R/O VILL/TOWN DAKSHIN MOHANPUR
         PART-VI
          P.S. SONAI (KACHUDARAM OP)

         SUB-DIVN- SILCHAR
         DIST. CACHAR
         ASSAM
         PIN-788119
         (OWNER OF THE COW).

         4: AFZAL HUSSAIN LASKAR
          S/O ABDUL SUBAN LASKAR

         R/O VILL/TOWN- KACHUDARAM PART-IV
         P.S. SONAI
                                                                     Page No.# 2/5

         SUB-DIVN- SILCHAR
         DIST. CACHAR
         ASSAM
         PIN-788119
         (OWNER OF THE COW)

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM
         REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM




                                 :: PRESENT ::
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

            For the Petitioner       :       Mr. A.C. Buragohain,
                                             Senior Advocate.

            For the Respondent :             Ms. S. Jahan,

Addl. P.P., Assam.

           Date of Hearing               :   06.12.2022.
          Date of Judgment       :           15.12.2022.


                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Cachar, Silchar, in respect of Kalain P.S. Case No.257 of 2022 is put to challenge. It may be stated that by the impugned order, the court below dismissed four applications seeking Page No.# 3/5

custody of 15 numbers of oxen and 17 numbers of buffalos.

3. The case of the petitioners in a nutshell is that they were carrying 15 numbers of oxen and 17 numbers of buffaloes in two trucks. Police registered cases under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 and under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The petitioners claiming to be owners of those animals, filed application before the court below seeking custody of the said animals. The court below rejected their applications.

4. Interim custody of those animals was given to a Gousala. The petitioners have claimed that they being the owner should have been given interim custody of those animals. They claimed that giving custody of the animals to a Gousala, is a gross violation of natural justice.

5. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

6. Mr. Buragohain has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar vs. Chakram M Nat, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 520.

7. Ms. Jahan, on the other hand, relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court delivered in Prema Veeraraghavan vs. State, reported in MANU/TN/0082/2002.

8. In Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar (supra), it has been held that in a case where the owner is claiming custody of the animals and whether interim custody of the animals be given to the owner, who is facing prosecution, the following facts are relevant:

a) The nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the Page No.# 4/5

owner.

b) Whether it is the first offence alleged or he has been found guilty of offences under the Act earlier.

c) If the owner is facing the first prosecution under the Act, the animal is not liable to be seized so the owner will have a better claim for the custody of the animals during prosecution.

d) The condition in which the animal was found at the time of inspection and seizure.

e) The possibility of the animal being again subjected to cruelty.

9. In Prema Veeraraghavan (supra), the Madras High Court has relied upon Rule 47 to 56 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. These rules say that no goods vehicle should carry more than six cattles and there should be a valid certificate by a qualified Veterinary Surgeon that the animals are fit to travel. In the case before the Madras High Court, 18 buffaloes carried in a single lorry in violation of the said rules.

10. In the case in hand, 15 oxen and 17 buffaloes were carried by two trucks. This fact is contrary to the Rule 47 to 56 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. Therefore, on the face of the record, it is clear that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners for subjecting the animals to cruelty.

11. Being a revisional court, acting under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court finds that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order of the learned Magistrate. The court below has rightly rejected the prayer for interim custody of the animals.

Page No.# 5/5

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant