The Karnataka High Court on 09.02.2021(Tuesday) comprising of a single bench of Justice H P Sandesh set aside an order of the Magistrate court handing over custody of ten dogs given to their owner who treated them with cruelty.(Compassion Unlimited Plus Action v. State of Karnataka)
The bench set aside the order of the magistrate court which restored the animals to the man accused of cruelty and handed over the dogs to an NGO, Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, which expressed willingness to take care of them.
The Court observed, "Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under Section 3 and Section 11 of the PCA Act read with Article 51- A(g) and (h) of the Constitution of India".
Facts of the Case
Harish K.B, an Animal Welfare Activist, had filed a complaint on 19.09.2020 to the Police, against the accused (SHREYAS) for the offences relating to animal cruelty. The police registered a case against the accused under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The complainant alleged that the accused is an unlicensed dog breeder, who is conducting commercial activity of dogs breeding. He has in his custody many female dogs and puppies that are being subjected to abject cruelty by confining them in an unsanitary kennel. The complaint stated that the dogs confined are in docks without being provided with adequate food, water and veterinary care, thereby subjecting them to pain and sufferings. The complaint even narrated that a few dogs are in pathetic condition and are in need of immediate medical care and attention.
Acting on the complaint, the police seized five dogs from the accused and five dogs from the custody of the accused and handed them over to trust and the said dogs were transferred to the Rehabilitation Center for immediate treatment situated at CUPA Second Chance Adoption Center, Sarjapura Road, Bengaluru.
The Karnataka Animal Welfare Board issued a notice dated 21.09.2020 to the first respondent police directing them to seize the remaining dogs and hand them over to a trusted NGO for care and maintenance.
The petitioner, an NGO named Compassion Unlimited Plus, filed an application under Rules 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, seeking for a direction from the court below permitting custody of the aforesaid ten dogs to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above criminal proceedings and also seeking maintenance at Rs.50,000, per month towards cost of medical treatment, food and shelter for the seized dogs. The police have filed a requisition on 30.09.2020. The accused also filed objections to the said applications. The magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and passed the order directing the concerned police to hand over the interim custody of the dogs to the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition was filed.
Contention of the Parties
A case was registered under Section 11 of the PCA Act on the allegation that the animals that are subjected to cruelty cannot remain in the custody of the owner of such animal, pending investigation. Further, it was argued as per Rules 3 and 4 of the PCA Rules, 2017, the accused cannot retain custody of animals that are subjected to cruelty.
Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, which confers a constitutional duty on all citizens and the State to have compassion for living creatures, was also relied on.
The accused argued that the police has given illegal custody of the dogs which are owned by him. It was pointed out that one of the dogs had died when the custody was given to the petitioner and the same is not reported to the Court. As the investigation is not yet completed, any future custody in favour of the petitioner NGO would cause loss to the accused, it was argued.
Court's Observation & Judgment
After going through the rival contentions, the Court observed that,
"The paramount consideration of the Act as well as the Rules is to protect the interest of the dogs, which was subjected to cruelty."
The Court noted that the magistrate court ignored the pathetic conditions of the animals and the injuries they have sustained in the custody of the accused.
"The Rule 3(b) is specific that the learned Magistrate has to take note of the conditions of the dog and exercise the power in consonance with the object of the enactment and also the welfare of the animal and the same has not been considered."
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja and Others.
"Having taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment, it is clear that the very object and wisdom of legislature have to be taken note of and also the expanding of 23 the definition and scope of Article 51-A(g) and (h) and also which includes, all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
The Court concluded by saying that the aspects of cruelty against the said dogs and the greed of the accused had not been considered by the magistrate.
"The learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the permission was not obtained by the Investigating Officer handing over the dogs from the Court, but ought to have taken note of the paramount consideration of the dogs which have been treated with cruelty and the report of the veterinary doctor says that the dogs are sustained injuries, instead of going on technicality, ought to have taken note of the paramount consideration of the welfare of the animals that has not been done."
The Court thus quashed the magistrate's order and directed for the dogs to be transferred to the custody of the petitioner NGO.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
