Madras High Court

Abbas Manthiri vs State Represented By on 31 January, 2025

Author: M.Nirmal Kumar

Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar

                                                                   Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                          RESERVED ON          : 25.10.2024
                                          PRONOUNCED ON        : 31.01.2025

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR


                                       Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024



                  1. Abbas Manthiri                      ... Petitioner in Crl.RC.1421/2024
                  2. Mariyappan                          ... Petitioner in Crl.RC.1433/2024
                  3.Thiyagarajan                         ... Petitioner in Crl.RC.1461/2024


                                                        Vs.


                  1.State Represented by
                    Station House Officer,
                    Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station,
                    Crime No.192/2024                ... 1st Respondent in
                                                          Crl.R.C.Nos.1421 & 1433/2024
                  2.State Represented by
                    Inspector of Police,
                    Acharapakkam Police Station,
                    Chengalpattu District
                    Crime No216/2024                 ... 1st Respondent in
                                                                Crl.R.C.No.1461/2024

                  3.M.Vignesh                            ... 2nd Respondent in
                                                             Crl.R.C.Nos.1421 & 1433/2024

                  4.R.Raguram Sharma                     ... 2nd Respondent in Crl.RC.1461/24




                  Page No.1 of 22



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                             Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024




                  COMMON PRAYER in CRL RC.1421 & 1433/2024: Criminal Revision
                  Petitions filed under Sections 338 R/W 442 of B.N.S.S, to set aside the
                  order           dated   22.07.2024       passed   in   Crl.M.P.No.1137         of   2024      &
                  Crl.M.P.No.1138 of 2024 respectively in Crime No.192/2024, on the file
                  of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu and direct to release 22
                  Bulls & 2 Calves and 21 Bulls respectively.


                  PRAYER in CRL RC.1461/2024: Criminal Revision Petition filed under
                  Sections 338 R/W 442 of B.N.S.S, to set aside the order dated
                  10.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.596 of 2024 in Crime No.216/2024, on
                  the       file     of   the   Judicial    Magistrate     No.II,    Madurantakam             and
                  consequently            direct the 1st Respondent to release 74 Bullock and
                  handover the same to the Petitioner.



                                     For Petitioners            :        Mr.R.John Sathiyan
                                     (in all cases)                      Senior Counsel
                                                                         For Mr.A.Thameem Mohideen

                                     For 1st Respondent         :        Mr.A.Damodaran
                                     (in all cases)                      Addl.Public Prosecutor

                                     For 2nd Respondent  :               Mr.Sathish Parasaran
                                     (in RC.1421&1433/2024)              Senior Counsel
                                                                         For Mr.Rahul Balaji

                                     For 2nd Respondent    :             Ms.Madhumitha. J
                                     (in Crl.RC.1461/2024)




                  Page No.2 of 22



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                     Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024




                                                   COMMON ORDER

The Criminal Revision Cases filed praying to set aside the order

dated 22.07.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1137 of 2024 & Crl.M.P.No.1138

of 2024 respectively, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Chengalpattu, and the order dated 10.08.2024, passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurantakam, consequently to direct the 1st

respondent to release 22 Bulls and 2 Calves, 21 Bulls and 74 Bullock

respectively in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2024, Crl.R.C.No.1433 of 2024 and

Crl.R.C.No.1461 of 2024 and handover the same to the Petitioners.

2. Facts, which are germane for disposal of the Revisions can be

summarised as follows:-

On the complaint of the 2nd Respondent / defaco complainant, who

are the Trust Member of “Almighty Animal Care Trust”, and State

President of “Gau Raksha Dal” respectively Crl.R.C.Nos.1421 & 1433 of

2024 and Crl.R.C.No.1461 of 2024 gave complaints before the 1st

Respondent Police that the Petitioners illegally transporting Cattle in

Container Lorries, bearing Registration Nos.TN-60-AV-4227 and TN-60-

Q-3265 and TN-51-AG-7777. When the Container Lorries intercepted by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

the Police, they found in the Container Lorry, bearing Registration

No.TN-60-AV-4227 with 22 Cattle & 2 Calves and in the other Lorry

bearing Registration No.TN-60-Q-3265 having 21 Cattle and in other

Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-51-AG-7777, having 74 Cattle in a

cruel manner. The animals were rescued. On enquiry, it was informed

by the drivers of the lorries that the Cattle were taken to Kerala for

slaughter. Since the Cattle in all the lorries transported to Kerala in

inhumane conditions, for the meat illegally, tightly cramped, without

food and water, and the Cattle are below 10 years in age, the case in

Crime No.192/2004 and Crime No.216/2024 registered respectively for

the offence U/s. 429 of IPC., r/w Sections 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d) & 4 of

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 325 BNS Act

r/w Section 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e) of Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals Act, 1960, against the owners of the Container Lorries and

others. The Container Lorries and Cattle were seized by the Police.

Upon seizure of the Cattle, they were sent to “Sri Gokulakrishna

Kosala”, Tiruvallur District, a private barn, and “Mona's Heaven for

Domestic Animals Trust” under an interim detention of the bulls by the

1st Respondent Police.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

3. Mr.R.John Sathiyan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners are the owners of 22

Cattle & 2 Calves, 21 Cattle and 74 Cattle respectively seized by the 1st

respondent in Crime No.192/2024 and Crime No.216/2024, which were

purchased for agricultural activities and for breeding purposes and

transported from Andhra Pradesh to Theni Cumbum and Pollachi

through the Container Lorries, with valid certificates. On the complaint

of the defaco complainant, the 1st Respondent Police seized the Lorries,

including the Cattle and and sent the same to “Sri Gokulakrishna

Kosala” and “Mona's Heaven for Domestic Animals Trust”. The

petitioners purchased the Cattle in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, by paying

necessary Cess to Agriculture Market Committee Saluchinthala, at

Nellore, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter, transported to Tamil Nadu for

agricultural activities and for breeding purposes, through the Container

Lorries. The Cattle are transported by providing water and fodder to

prevent from hunger, and with proper ventilation. The Cattle were not

transported in a closed container lorry. The Cattle were loaded in the

Lorry only after being fed and hydrated.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

4. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the

Petitioners, aggrieved by the seizure of the Cattle by the 1st Respondent

Police, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in Crl.M.P.No.1137 of

2024, Crl.M.P.No.1138 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.596 of 2024 before the

learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpattu, and Judicial Magistrate

No.II, Madurantakam, for return of Cattle, as interim custody. The

Learned Judicial Magistrate, declined to give the interim custody of the

cattle to the Petitioners for the reason that the Petitioners alleged to

have violated the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,

1960 and that inhumane treatment meted out to the Cattle, by

transporting the cattle in a jam packed manner, which is especially

alleged to have transported for butchery, which is prohibited and

dismissed the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions.

5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Judicial

Magistrate erroneously found that there are chances for the Petitioners

to transport the cattle in an inhumane condition once again to Kerala for

slaughter. The petitioners are farmers, purchased the cattle for

agricultural and breeding purposes and it is transported only to Tamil

Nadu. Without making any personal inspection on the cattle, the learned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

Magistrate held that eyes of the cattle filled with chillies amounting to

causing cruelty. There is no ban for transporting the Cattle within the

state of Tamil Nadu, for agricultural and breeding purposes. The

Learned Magistrate failed to see that the 1st Respondent Police ought not

to have sent the Bulls to “Sri Gokulakrishna Kosala”, and “Mona's

Heaven for Domestic Animals Trust” a Private Barn, without the orders

of the Learned Magistrate, in compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals Act, 1960, and the said Kosala is not recognised by the

Government to have the seized cattle kept under their custody. When

there was an undertaking by the Petitioners to produce the Cattle before

the Court, if any order passed by the Court, the same has not been

taken note of by the learned Magistrate. The 2nd Respondent / De-facto

complainant, who filed Intervening Application, objected to the return of

cattle on the ground that the cattle transported in an inhumane

condition to Kerala, for slaughtering purposes, is nothing but a private

gain with libels in the First Information Report.

6. Mr.Sathish Parasaran , the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the 2nd Respondent / Defacto complainant in Crl.R.C.Nos.1421 &

1433/2024 would submit that the defacto complainant in this case is the

Trust Member of “Almighty Animal Care Trust”, gave a complaint on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

22.07.2024, before the Respondent Police when he found the Container

Lorries, bearing Registration Nos.TN-60-AV-4227 and TN-60-Q-3265,

near the Chengalpattu Tollgate with cow dung flowing down on the

ground. When the Container Lorries intercepted by the 1 st Respondent

Police, they found in the Container Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-

60-AV-4227 having 22 Cattle & 2 Calves and in the other Lorry bearing

Registration No.TN-60-Q-3265 having 21 Cattle and the animals were

rescued. The Respondent Police found during enquiry that the Cattle

were taken to Kerala, for butchering. It is further contended that the

Cattle transported by the owners in an inhumane conditions and for the

purpose of slaughtering at Kerala. The Cattle injured badly during

transportation and certain Cattle have been subjected to cruelty and

therefore, the learned counsel strongly object for return of Cattle.

7. Ms.Madhumitha, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

Respondent / Defacto complainant Crl.R.C.No.1461/2024 would submit

that the 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant is the State President of

“Gan Raksha Dal” and on 10.07.2024, he gave a complaint to the Police

that 74 bullocks being transported from Andhrapradesh to Pollachi in a

sealed container lorry, bearing Registration No.KA-51-AG-7777. Upon

the complaint, the Highway Patrol and Police intercepted the container

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

lorry and found that the bullocks were transported in closed vehicle, jam

packed with less probability for food, water and air. In order to prevent

the movement of the bullocks, the neck were tied closely. The bullocks

rescued to “Mona's Heaven for Domestic Animals Trust”, here the

bullocks are being fed and treated for their wounds. Therefore, the

learned counsel strongly objects for return of Cattle.

8. Mr.A.Damodaran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the 1st Respondent State would submit that all the seized Cattle

transported in Container Lorries without adequate food or fodder and

water, violating the transport Regulations. The Cattle were jam packed

sandwiched in the vehicles without sufficient space. Since the age of

entire Cattle is less than 10, it is illegal to be taken them for slaughter.

The Petitioners claim to have purchased the Cattle for agricultural and

breeding purposes, but the Veterinary Doctor's report indicates that,

with the exception of one, all the cattle were castrated, which makes it

impossible to breed. Though the petitioners provided the Cess receipt

from the Agricultural Market Committee and the Certificates issued

under Rule 96 of the Transportation of Animal Rules, 2001, as per the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, these documents not

presented to the 1st Respondent Police at the time of interception of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

vehicle and obtained subsequently. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to the decision of this

Court in Arunachala Animal Sanctuary & Rescue Shelter v.

Venkatesh and 2 Ors. Made in Crl.R.C.Nos.670-673 of 2015, dated

19.09.2022 acknowledged a common practice among transporters, who

often fail to carry required certificates initially and later procure them

post-seizure to secure interim custody and in almost all cases the cattle

is sold or killed once the custody is given.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appearing for the

1st Respondent Police would further submit that the contention of the

petitioners that the animals were transported to for purposes of

breeding and agriculture is untrue, as drivers in each instance have

consistently stated that the Cattle were transported to Kerala for

slaughter. All the Cattle were transported in an inhumanee condition,

sprinkling red chilli flakes or smearing green chilli in the eyes of cattle

being taken to slaughter houses is the method being adopted by the

cattle traffickers. The method ensures keeping awake the animals do not

sprawl on the floor, die while being transported on container Lorries. In

this case, from the Report of the Veterinary Doctor it is clear that green

chilies placed in the eyes of the cattle and they sustained numerous

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

injuries. The procedure under Section 35(2) of Animals Act, 1960 not

adhered to by the Magistrate because it is not practical for the

Magistrate to inspect and direct the custody of animals to a Goushala.

The police are authorized to seize Cattle and transfer them to the

nearest registered Goushala, when cattle are transported in violation of

the guidelines and rules established under the Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Act, 1960.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that The

2nd Respondent's Goushala is recognized by the Animal Welfare Board

and currently shelters over 400 animals, primarily cattle and dogs. The

2nd Respondent cared for the seized cattle at no cost, without receiving

charges for their maintenance. The present Criminal Revisions are filed

as against orders passed in an interlocutory stage by the trial court, on

the question of interim custody of the seized cattle pending trial. The

trial court has come to a conclusion that the Petitioners have not made

out a case for grant of interim custody of cattle. Therefore, such a

prima- facie based on documents produced before the trial court, needs

no interference. Further, Rule 8 of the Preservation of Cruelty to

Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017

reads as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

"8. Status of animal upon disposal of litigation. -

(1) If the accused is convicted, or pleads guilty, the magistrate shall deprive him of the ownership of animal and forfeit the seized animal to the infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Gaushala already having custody for proper adoption or other disposition.

(2) If the accused is found not guilty of all charges, the seized animal shall be returned to the accused or owner of the animal and the unused portion of any bond amount executed shall be returned to the person who executed the bond."

11. It is further submitted that, if at all the Petitioners are

ultimately found not guilty before the trial court, as per the above said

Rule 8, the cattle will have to be returned back to the Petitioners. The

Petitioners violated Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation

Act, 1958 in which it is clearly stated that the Animals may not be

slaughtered without a certificate, which can be issued only if the animal

is over ten years old, unfit for work or breeding, or permanently

incapacitated. Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 deals with causing cruelty to animal and

transporting animals in a manner which may inflict injury on them. Rule

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

96 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 2001 mandates obtaining a

certificate before transportation issued by any person Animal Welfare

Organisation or Authorized by Animal Welfare Board/ Central

Government. Rule 50 of the Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules,

2009, mandate that cattle should be given sufficient floor space, the

floor ought not be kept slippery so as to prevent the skidding and

injuries to the Cattle. Rule 56 of the Transport of Animals (Amendment)

Rules, 2009 explicitly requires the use of a special type of tailboard and

padding around the sides when cattle are transported in a goods vehicle.

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor in support of his

contentions, relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Raghuram

Sharma and Anr. v. C. Tulsi and Anr. Reported in (2020 SCC OnLine

SC 1325), wherein it has been held that the accused accused prima

facie found guilty based solely on the allegations in the FIR and ruled

that the accused are not entitled to interim custody of the cattle. The

Apex Court in Naseerulah v. State reported in (2013 SCC OnLine

Mad SC 1325), held that the injuries sustained by the animals were

solely due to illegal transportation and emphasized that it is the court's

responsibility to intervene to prevent cruelty. The Apex Court in a

decision in M.Vignesh v. State and Anr., in Special Leave to Appeal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

(Crl.)No.7868/2022, dated 16.01.2023, held that interim custody of the

cattle should remain with the Goushala, until the trial's conclusion.

13. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the

decision of this Court in Arunachala Animal Sanctuary & Rescue

Shelter's case (cited supra) wherein it has been held that the police are

authorized to seize animals and transfer them to the nearest registered

Goushala, if the transportation violates the guidelines and rules under

the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Further, this Court in

Para 5, this Court acknowledged the common practice of transporters

not carrying required certificates initially, only to procure them post-

seizure to secure interim custody; often, the cattle are sold or

slaughtered once custody is regained. This Court in Sunitha Christy v.

State and Anr. (Crl.RC.(MD) No.660 of 2021), held that the accused

were prima facie guilty of transporting 26 cattle under the age of 10 in a

single container without proper certification, and therefore, denied

interim custody of the cattle. This Court in Vikram v. Y. Fogullah

Shariff and Anr. (Crl.RC.No.1480 of 2013), held that transportation

of 20 cattle in one lorry from Andhra Pradesh to Madras to be in

violation of laws and ordered that custody of the cattle be given to the

Goushala until the trial's resolution.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted

that the cattle in question have castrated, yet the Petitioners contend

they purchased and transported for breeding purposes. This fact alone

suggests that the cattle were indeed intended for slaughter, and any

contrary assertions by the Petitioners appear to be mere afterthoughts,

likely made to regain custody of the cattle. The Petitioners if found not

guilty at trial, will be entitled to regain custody of the cattle. The cattle

are currently under the care of a Goushala and are given proper

treatment, which would be jeopardized, if custody were granted back to

the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Revisions.

15. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials available on record.

16. It is not in dispute that on the complaint of the 2 nd Respondent

/ defaco complainant, who are the Trust Member of “Almighty Animal

Care Trust”, and State President of “Gau Raksha Dal” respectively

Crl.R.C.Nos.1421 & 1433 of 2024 and Crl.R.C.No.1461 of 2024, the

the 1st Respondent Police, intercepted the Container Lorry, bearing

Registration No.TN-60-AV-4227 found with 22 Cattle & 2 Calves and in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

the other Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-60-Q-3265 having 21 Cattle

and in another Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-51-AG-7777, having 74

Cattle in a cruel manner were transported. The animals were rescued.

On enquiry, it was informed by the drivers of the lorries that the Cattle

were taken to Kerala for butchering. Since the Cattle in all the lorries

transported to Kerala in inhumane conditions, for the meat illegally,

tightly cramped, without food and water, and the Cattle are below 10

years in age, the case in Crime No.192/2004 and Crime No.216/2024

registered respectively for the offence U/s. 429 of IPC., r/w Sections

11(1)(a), 11(1)(d) & 4 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and

Section 325 BNS Act r/w Section 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e) of

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, against the owners of the

Container Lorries and others. The Container Lorries and Cattle were

seized by the Police. Upon confiscation of the Cattle, they were sent to

“Sri Gokulakrishna Kosala”, and “Mona's Heaven for Domestic Animals

Trust” under an interim detention of the Cattle by the 1st Respondent

Police. The Petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in

Crl.M.P.No.1137/2024 and Crl.M.P.No.1138/2024, and

C.M.P.No.596/2024, before the learned Judicial Magistrate II,

Chengalpattu, for return of Cattle, as interim custody. The Learned

Judicial Magistrate, declined to give the interim custody of the cattle to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

the Petitioners on the ground that the Petitioners violated the provisions

of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and that inhumane

treatment meted out to the Cattle, by transporting the Cattle in

Container Lorries, in a jam packed manner, which is especially alleged

to have transported for butchery, which is prohibited, has dismissed

petitions. Against which, the Petitioners are before this Court with these

Revisions.

17. No doubt, in the case on hand, large number of Cattle

transported by the petitioners in an inhumane manner and transporting

in the Container Lorries. It is seen from the records that in one

Container Lorry, 22 Bulls and 2 Calves, in another Container Lorry, 21

Bulls and other Lorry, 74 Bullock transported from Andhrapradesh to

Kerala, without providing basic facilities like feeding, water, sufficient

place to the Cattle even to stand. Initial inquriy and the report from the

Veterinary Doctor revealed that the Cattle were transported from

Andhrapradesh to Kerala in unhygienic conditions, with chilli flakes

sprinkled and chillies placed in the eyes of Cattle to keep them awake

and the Cattle are below 10 years in age, thus, there is a clear violation

of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Transport of Animal Rules,

1978. As per Rules 47 to 56 of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

specifies that 'no goods vehicle should carry more than six cattle and

there should be a valid certificate by a qualified Veterinary Surgeon that

the animals are fit to travel and each consignment should bear a label

showing the name and address of the consignor and the consignee.

Absolutely, nothing has been followed in this case and the trial Courts

are right in dismissing the petitions filed by the Petitioners, which needs

no interference. The present arrangement of maintaining the Cattle in

the respective Khosala and to be continued till the trial is completed and

final orders passed entrusting custody of Cattle.

18. There are several rules and practices that must be followed to

ensure the safety and well-being during the transit of Cattle.

Transporting cattle is a careful process that requires strict adherence to

Animal Welfare Regulations, proper vehicle equipment, and ensuring the

Cattle's health and safety during the journey. The following guidelines

to be strictly followed while transporting the Cattle from one place to

another place / District / State:-

(i). The Transporters of Cattle to ensure adequate space to stand, lie down and turn around.

(ii). Safety must be ensured while loading and unloading of cattle, in order to prevent injury and stress. The Ramps and loading docks should be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024

designed to prevent Cattle from slipping or falling.

(iii). During transit of cattle, they must be provided ventilation and to ensure warm temperatures in the container / vehicle.

(iv). In case of long transit of Cattle through vehicle, food and water should be provided in the interregnum period of pick-up and drop points.

(v). Before transporting the Cattle, it has to be checked whether the Cattle health conditions are fit to transport from one place to another.

(vi) During transportation, the Cattle has to be monitored whether it has any signs of distress, injury or illness and if found, the Cattle should be removed immediately from the vehicle and should be treated.