Bombay High Court: In twin writ petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 23-8-2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge dismissing revision applications against rejection of handing over custody of seized animals for offences punishable under Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (1960 Act), Sections 66 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), G.A. Sanap, J. dismissed the instant petition while directing the authorities to keep a check on maintenance, upkeep and protection of the animals while being in interim custody of Maa Foundation Goushala.
The petitioners claimed to be owners of specific numbers of cattle (buffaloes) which were allegedly being illegally transported in trucks, intercepted by police after receiving information of such activity. It was alleged that the animals were in a bad condition, dumped in vehicles, subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering, due to which, the police seized all the animals and handed over their interim custody to Maa Foundation Goushala.
The Magistrate had rejected the application to hand over the custody of animals to the applicants. Revision application before the Sessions Court was also dismissed, which led the applicants to proceed with the instant matter.
Some of the petitioners in the instant case were not accused of crimes, but applied for custody of animals while claiming that they have license of purchase and sell of animals from Agricultural Produce Market Committees (‘APMC’) market with the claim of being owners of such animals after purchase. It was further alleged that the animals, including milching buffaloes, were being transported for selling to another APMC market.
The State attempted to justify interim custody of animals with Maa Foundation Goushala through Section 35 of 1960 Act, further contended that “interim custody of the animals be retained with them inasmuch as the possibility of subjecting the animals to cruelty at the behest of the applicants, cannot be ruled out.”
The Court perused the relevant rules under Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 (‘1978 Rules’) to consider the petitioner’s claim refusing any form of cruelty to animals. The Court observed that the animals in the instant case were loaded 3-4 times beyond the capacity of vehicles which lacked first-aid equipments, arrangement of water or fodder, as against requirements under 1978 Rules. The Court found the transportation of animals in the instant case in violation of 1978 Rules and said that “a valid certificate by a qualified Veterinary Surgeon regarding fitness of animals to transport by road with other particulars, was not obtained by the owners”.
The Court also referred to Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 dealing with special requirements of motor vehicles transporting livestock. The Court rightly commented that “animals have emotions, feelings and senses similar to a human being. The only difference is that the animals cannot speak and therefore, though their rights are recognized under the law, they cannot assert the same.”
The Court referred to Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 for the object of 1960 Act and duty of persons to implement the same. The Court noted that cases of animal cruelty should be approached and decided with great sensitivity to be consistent with the object of the 1960 Act. The Court further relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1402 condemning custody of animals back to the owners who violated the Rules against animal cruelty. Also, in Raguramsharma v. C. Thulsi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1325, the Court considered Rule 56 of 1978 Rules and held that such transportation affects the overall health of the cattle, while refusing interim custody to the owner. It was further held that “during pendency of the criminal case, the Court is duty bound to ensure about maintenance of the cattle.”
The Court observed that prima facie case of violation of law and rules has been made out in the instant matter, and opined that while deciding such matters, primary consideration must be the welfare and maintenance of such animals. It further said that “The Court has to see who is comparatively better suited and equipped to provide the necessary comfort and protection to the animals.” and found the petitioners not entitled to custody of animals.
The Court dismissed the instant writ petition and directed the Investigating Officer to report the compliance of the order passed by the Magistrate on 11-4-2022 within a month. It further directed the Magistrate to direct the in-charge of police station and Veterinary Officer of jurisdiction to pay bimonthly visits to the Maa Foundation Gaushala for the purpose of observing maintenance, upkeep and protection of the animals.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1123, decided on 6-06-2023]
Judgment by: Justice G.A. Sanap
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Advocate Laique Hussain;
For Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor H.D. Dubey, Advocate D.R. Galande, Advocate Raju Gupta.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Beautiful observation by Hon’ble Nagpur High Court. Animals needs our love and care.