Kamala Begum vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8456 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Kamala Begum vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 11 November, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010032642025




                                                               undefined

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

                                Case No. : Crl.Pet./219/2025

            KAMALA BEGUM
            W/O- MUKTAR HUSSAIN, R/O- BALAPARA, P.O AND PS TARABARI, DIST-
            BARPETA 785112, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
            REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:KRISHNA GOGOI
             S/O LT. UTURA GOGOI
            R/OTELAHI
             HIRA GAON
            P.S.DHORAMTUL

            DIST. MORIGAON
            ASSA

Advocates for the Petitioner:    Mr. N.J. Daimari, Advocate.

Advocates for the respondent: Mr. P. Borthakur, Addl. P.P.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Date of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date of Judgment: 11.11.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Page No.# 2/8

Heard Mr. N.J. Daimari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.

2. The instant proceeding has arisen out of an application filed by the petitioner, Kamala Begum, under section 528 BNSS,2023, seeking quashing of FIR giving rise to Kaliabor P.S. Case No.97/2023 and the subsequent charge-sheet dated 03.08.2023, filed after completion of investigation.

3. The background facts are that one FIR dated 03-11-2023 was lodged at the Kaliabor police station with the allegation that on 02-11-2023, in the wee hours at around 01.30 am, upon information from reliable sources, a Naka checking was laid on NH-37, during which one 16-wheeler truck bearing registration number AS-01-PC-1278 was found to be carrying 30 numbers of ox in a pathetic condition without food or water. The driver Noor Islam Khan and handyman Dildar Hussain were apprehended and upon being questioned, they stated that the vehicle was loaded with cattle from Silapathar, Dhemaji and were being carried to Meghalaya.

4. It is alleged in the FIR that these two persons could not produce proper receipts of the cattle and therefore, it was suspected that the cattle were being transported illegally.

5. The case was registered under sections 379/411 IPC, read with section 11(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, (hereinafter PCA Act), read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, (hereinafter Assam Cattle Act).

6. After completion of investigation, the case was charge-sheeted against Noor Islam Khan and Dildar Hussain. The charge sheet was filed under Sections 120B/379/411 IPC, read with 120B/379/411 IPC sections . The charge sheet was Page No.# 3/8

filed against driver Noor Islam Khan, handyman Dildar Hussain and Noor Islam Khan, Kamala Begum, the present petitioner and Abdul Rahman . The present petitioner, Kamala Begum, is stated to be the owner of the said 16-wheeler truck bearing number AS-01-PC-1278.

7. It is submitted and contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is the owner of the truck and that she is not involved in said transportation of the cows. It is also contended that being the registered owner, she has been falsely implicated as violating the Provisions of the Animal Cruelty Act and the Assam Cattle Act.

8. On the other hand, the learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State respondent submits that at the time of seizure, 30 (thirty) numbers of bullocks were found, which is much beyond the permissible numbers to be carried in terms of the rules framed under the PCA Act, and therefore, prima facie the animals were being ferried in a circumstance inflicting cruelty upon them.

9. It is also submitted by the learned Additional P.P. that the materials have indicated that the cattle were loaded on to the truck at the behest of Moktar Hussain, husband of the petitioner, but he has not been arrayed as an accused in the FIR nor charge-sheeted after investigation. The present petitioner, who is the wife of the said Moktar Hussain, is the registered owner of the said of the concerned vehicle.

10. As per the seizure list dated 15-11-2023, six money receipts of Simon Chapori weekly market in the name of Abdul Rahman was found with regard to 30 cattle.

11. In any case, the charge sheet has been filed under the provisions of the Page No.# 4/8

Animal Cruelty Act and the Assam Cattle Preservation Act. On the basis of the materials available at present, there is no dispute that the present petitioner is the owner of the truck. As per another seizure list dated 15-11-2023, the registration certificate of the truck was found in the name of Kamala Begum, wife of Moktar Hussain.

12. From the case record, I find that vide order dated 08.12.2023, the learned JMFC at Kaliabor was pleased to grant interim custody of the cattle to the said Abdul Rahman and also, interim custody of the truck to the petitioner, Kamala Begum, as the owner of the same.

13. Before proceeding further, the provisions of law have looked at Section- 11(1) of PCA, which is quoted herein below :-

11. Treating animals cruelly.―(1) If any person―

(a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or

(b) 1[employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease], infirmity, wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be so employed;

(c) wilfully and unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injurious substance to 2[any animal] or wilfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any such drug or substance to be taken by 2[any animal]; or

(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or

(e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or

(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; or

(g) being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog habitually Page No.# 5/8

chained up or kept in close confinement; or

(h) being the owner of 3[any animal] fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or

(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst; or

j) wilfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner, to go at large in any street while the animal is affected with contagious or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the owner, to die in any street; or

(k) offers for sale or, without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment; or 1[(l) multilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner; or] 2[(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment--

(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal (including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object of prey for any other animal; or

(ii) incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal; or]

(n) 2*** organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of, any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes; or

(o) promotes or takes part in any shooting match or competition wherein animals are released from captivity for the purpose of such shooting;

he shall be punishable, 4[in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both].

14. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid provisions of the PCA Act that if the owner of the animal permits any animal to be treated in the manner described in Clauses a), b), c), d) of section 11(1) - The said owner would also invite criminal liability.

Page No.# 6/8

15. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here in that Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act criminalizes the contravention of Section 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act as already stated.

16. In this context, Section-7(5) of the Assam Cattle Act, provides that the cattle shall be transported in the manner prescribed by the Central Government Rules governing the transport of cattle under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

17. In this context, the learned Addl. P.P. has contended that the number the 30 nos. of cattle found in the vehicle is way above the permissible limit of approximately only 6 cattle. It has emerged from the statements of the driver and the handyman recorded during investigation that husband of the petitioner instructed them to park the truck near one petrol pump at Dhemaji and thereafter, one person came and loaded the cattle on to their vehicles and instructed them to carry the same to place name Lambuh in Meghalaya.

18. The statements of both the driver Nur Islam Khan and handyman Dildar Hussain are on similar lines. As already stated, the said Moktar Hussain is stated to be the husband of the petitioner, Kamala Begum and the same is also stated in the registration certificate of the vehicle seized by the police. Upon framing of charge, the learned Trial Court would always be at liberty to summon him as an accused invoking the powers of Section 319 Cr.P.C (Section 358 BNSS), if the learned Court finds sufficient materials for invoking the said powers, in terms of the settled case law in this regard.

19. On the basis of materials available at this stage, the petitioner is clearly the registered owner of the vehicle. Though receipts were seized at the time of Page No.# 7/8

seizure indicating that the cattle were purchased but no documents have been indicated by the seizure list regarding any permit to transport the cattle outside the State to Meghalaya. Though, the owner of the cattle has been sent up for trial in the charge-sheet, but Moktar Hussain, the husband of the petitioner Kamala Begum has not been sent up for trial. Though, as per the statements of the two occupants of the truck, the cattle were loaded into the truck at his instance.

20. The provisions of Section-7 sub clauses 1 to 5 of the Assam Cattle Act may also be reproduced herein below: -

"7. Prohibition on transport of cattle.-(1) No person shall or cause to be transported any cattle, without valid permit, from,-

(i) any place of other State through Assam to any place outside State of Assam;

(ii) any place within the State of Assam to any place outside the state of Assam where slaughter of cattle is not regulated by law.

(2) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cattle from any place of other State to any place within the State the slaughter whereof is punishable under this Act.

2[(3) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cattle from any place within the State of Assam to any other place in a district within the State which shares international border within any foreign Country, the slaughter whereof is punishable under this Act.

[(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the competent authority may issue permit to any agency or farm, registered under the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Assam for transport of cattle for bona-fide agricultural or animal husbandry purposes or for transportation of cattle for trade for the said purposes as may be prescribed in the rules framed under this Act.]

(5) The cattle shall be transported in the manner prescribed by the Central Government rules, governing the transport of cattle under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (Central Act 59 of 1960)."

21. In view of the materials revealed by the investigation that - (i) 30 numbers of cattle were found being carried in the truck, which is stated to be much above the permissible limit; (ii) the statements of the two occupants of the vehicle about the cattle Page No.# 8/8

being loaded at Dhemaji upon instruction of the husband of the present petitioner; (iii) the materials clearly revealing the petitioner to be the owner of the truck and the wife of the

Moktar Hussain - I come to the considered opinion that to determine whether

offenses under the PCA Act and Assam Cattle Act have been made out, evidence would require to be adduced regarding the same. To put it alternatively, I come to the considered finding on the basis of materials that these materials give rise to triable issues and in the context of the materials revealed by the investigation, it cannot be said legally that the I/O was unjustified in filing charge-sheet against the petitioner as well the owner of the truck.

22. Consequently, in the backdrop of the above discussion, I find the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding to be devoid of merit and thus, the instant criminal petition stands dismissed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant