Shakeer Ali vs State Rep By Its
2022 Latest Caselaw 976 Mad

                                                                              Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 21.01.2022
                                                          CORAM

                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
                                                    Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021
                    Shakeer Ali                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                            Vs.
                    State rep by its
                    The Inspector of Police,
                    Karumathampatty Police station
                    Coimbatore District .                                    .... Respondents
                         PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 401 r/w.397 of
                    Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to
                    Crl.MP.No.1381 of 2021 in Cr.No.433 of 2021 and set aside the order
                    dated 03.09.2021 made by the Judicial Magistrate, Sulur and direct to
                    release 30 Nos of buffalo (cow).
                                   For Petitioner      : Mr.M.Vimal Bobby Crimson
                                   For Respondent      : Mr.S.Sugendran, GA (Crl.side)
                                                          ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference)

This revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to set

aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore

District in CMP.No.1381 of 2021 dated 03.09.2021 dismissing the petition

filed under Section 451 r/w.457 Cr.PC, seeking for return of the seized

cattles.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The respondent/police on information along with her party had

conducted vehicle check up on 26.07.2021 at 19.00hrs and at that time

they intercepted Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing Registration No.KA55 A

0938 and conducted search, during search it was found 30cows (female

buffalos) were loaded in it. On enquiry, the driver of the vehicle had

informed that he is from Kerala and he was transporting 30cows belonging

to the petitioner to drop them at Pollachi. On inspection, it was found that

the cows (female buffalos) were transported in violation of the provisions

of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. On enquiry, the driver of

the vehicle had admitted the guilt and the respondent had registered a case

in Cr.No.433 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 429 IPC, Section

11(1)(a)(d)(e)(h) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 Section

96 and 98(1) of Transport of Animals Rules 1978 and Section 8(1) of the

Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1978. The seized vehicle and the

cattle were produced before the Court. The petitioner had filed

Crl.MP.No.1381 of 2021 for return of property.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

3. The respondent has not filed any objection to hand over the cattle

to the petitioner/owner of the property. However, the respondent/police

had filed health certificate of the above said 30cattles, wherein it was

stated that "all the animals need physical rest and rehabilitation so not fit

for transportation at present".

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate relying on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Muralidharan V. Nagaraj and another

reported in 2015 (4) MLJ 38 and holding that the cattle were taken for

butchery and that interim custody cannot be granted to the petitioner at this

stage, had dismissed the application, against which, the present revision

has been filed.

5. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is an

agriculturist running a cattle farm at Pollachi. He had purchased 30cows

(female buffalos) from Krishnagiri District and he had entrusted the cattle

to be transported to his farm at Pollachi. While enroute the respondent had

intercepted the vehicle and registered a case, against the driver of the lorry

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

and had seized the cattle. The cattles are cows (female buffalos) intended

to be used in the farm of the petitioner and it is not the case were the cattle

were attempted to be smuggled to Kerala for slaughtering. The learned

Magistrate had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of S.Muralidharan V. Nagaraj and another reported in 2015 (4)

MLJ 38 had dismissed the application. In that case, the Court had found

that the cattle were continuously transported from District to District and

they were transported for the purpose of slaughtering. Whereas, the

petitioner had transported cows for the purpose of using them in the farm

land. He would submit that the cattles are now retained at Dhyan

Goushala, Madukkarai, Coimbatore District. The petitioner is unable to

use them in his cattle farm.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner being

the owner of the cattle has not committed any cruelty to the animals, he

had handed over the animals for transporting from Krishnagiri to Pollachi

and transported in violation of provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Act without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

not been found guilty for the offence under the Act earlier and he has not

suffered any conviction. The petitioner undertakes that the cattle will be

maintained properly and will not be subjected to cruelty and the petitioner

is prepared to produce them either before the respondent or before the

Court as and when required for and he is also prepared to furnish adequate

surety for the same.

7. He would also submit that there is no legal bar for returning the

cattle to the owner of the cattle. He would further submit that in similar

matters, the Courts have, while deciding whether the interim custody of the

animals can be given to the owners who is facing prosecution has found

the following factors to be relevant :- (1) the nature and gravity of the

offence alleged against the owner; (2) whether it is the first offence

alleged or he has been found guilty of offences under the Act earlier; (3) 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 animal during the prosecution; (4) the condition in which the animal

was found at the time of inspection and seizure; (5) the possibility of the

animal being again subjected to cruelty."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

8. The learned counsel would further submit that in the similar

circumstances, the Gujarat High Court in Spl.Crl.A.No.8243 of 2020

dated 06.05.2021 had ordered release of cattle in favour of the owner

imposing certain conditions.

9. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the

lorry bearing Registration No.KA55 A 0938 was intercepted by the

respondent/police and it was found transporting 30cows (female buffalos)

in violation of provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

He would submit that on enquiry, the driver had stated that the cattle

belongs to the petitioner and they were transported from Krishnagiri to

Pollachi to the cattle farm of the petitioner.

10. Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record.

11. Since, it was found that 30cows (female buffalos) were

transported in a congested manner in violation of the provisions of the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the respondent has registered

a case. The petitioner had filed application for return of cattle and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

learned Magistrate relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in

the case of S.Muralidharan (cited supra) had dismissed the application. In

that case, the cattles have been transported for slaughtering. However, in

this case the cattles are 30 cows (female buffalos) and as per the petitioner

they are transported for raising them in his farm for agricultural purpose

and not for slaughtering. It is also stated by the petitioner that due care of

the cattle will be taken by him and they will be produced before the

respondent or before the Court as and when required for.

12. In the case of Manager, Pinjrapore Deudar and another v.

Chakram Moraji Mat and others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 520 the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held "In a case where the owner is claiming the

custody of the animal, the pinjrapole has no preferential right. In deciding

whether the interim custody of the animal be given to the owner who is

facing prosecution, or to the pinjrapole, the following factors will be

relevant : (1) the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the

owner; (2) whether it is the first offence alleged or he has been found

guilty of offences under the Act earlier; (3) if the owner is facing the first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

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 animal during the

prosecution; (4) the condition in which the animal was found at the time of

inspection and seizure; (5) the possibility of the animal being again

subjected to cruelty. There cannot be any doubt that establishment of the

pinjrapole is with the laudable object of preventing unnecessary pain or

suffering to animals and providing protection to them and birds. But it

should also be seen: (a) whether the pinjrapole is functioning as an

independent organization or under the scheme of the Board and is

answerable to the Board; and (b) whether the pinjrapole has a good

record of taking care of the animals given under its custody. A perusal of

the order of the High Court shows that the High Court has taken relevant

factors into consideration in coming to the conclusion that it is not a fit

case to interfere in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge

directing the State to hand over the custody of the animals to the owners."

13. In this case as stated above, the petitioner is the owner of 30 cows

(female buffalos), he had handed it over to the transporter for transporting

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

it from Krishnagiri to his cattle farm in Pollachi. The cattle have been

transported in violation of the provisions of Prevention of cruelty to

Animals Act without the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner has not

suffered any previous conviction. The cows are not taken for slaughtering

and they have been taken to the farm of the petitioner at Pollachi. The

petitioner has agreed to file an affidavit of undertaking that the animal will

not be subjected to cruelty and they will be produced before the trial Court

as and when required.

14. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion the learned

Magistrate can be directed to handover the interim custody of the cattle 30

cows (female buffalos) to the petitioner on certain conditions.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned

order, dismissing the petition for return of property in Crl.MP.No.1381 of

2021, dated 03.09.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur,

Coimbatore, is hereby set aside and that the interim custody of the cattles

(30 female buffalos) shall be handed over to the petitioner, subject to the

following conditions:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

(i)The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.75,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction

of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore District.

(ii)The petitioner shall take individual photographs of the

bulls (30 female buffalos) and hand it over to the Magistrate.

(iii)The petitioner is further directed to file an affidavit of

undertaking that the cattle will be maintained properly and will

not be treated cruelly and it will be transported in a safe manner

and used only for agricultural purpose and if necessary they

will be produced before the learned Magistrate or before the

respondent as and when required or either during investigation

or during trial.

With the above direction, the criminal revision stands allowed.

21.01.2022.

tsh To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, Coimbatore

2. The Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District.

Note : Issue copy on 31.01.2022.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J tsh

Crl.RC.No.965 of 2021

21.01.2022.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis