Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASG') setting aside order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (‘JMFC')handing over the custody of seized animals to the petitioner, G.A. Sanap, J. upheld the order passed by the ASG since the animals were subjected to the cruelty of an aggravated form by the petitioner.
Factual Matrix
In the matter at hand, 18 buffaloes were seized by the police on 20-11-2022 which were being illegally transported according to the information received by the police. The buffaloes were found crammed in the short space of the tempo which was not sufficient to carry the animals. with a crime was registered for offences under Sections 11(1), 11(1)(c), and 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 119 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Sections 83 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the time being, Investigating Officer (‘IO') handed the custody of the buffaloes to Siddha Baal Hanuman Sansthan.
The accused applied for custody of the animals before JMFC, wherein JMFC allowed the application and handed the custody of buffaloes to the accused. The same was challenged by the Hanuman Sansthan before ASG which overturned the decision of the JMFC and handed the custody to Hanuman Sansthan. This order was again challenged by the accused in the instant matter.
Analysis
The Court perused Rules 47 to 50 of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, and said that the accused didn't obtain a fitness certificate from Veterinary Surgeon for transporting the animals by road. Further, the animals were loaded 3-4 times beyond the capacity of the vehicles prescribed under the 1978 Rules. Also, there was no provision for first-aid equipment, fodder, and water in the vehicle in addition to it, and the animals were being transported by goods vehicle.
The Court further highlighted the breach of Rule 56(c) of 1978 Rules, which provides that no goods vehicle should carry more than six cattle. Further, there was no special type of tail board and padding around the sides with no anti-slipping material on the floor of the vehicle. Therefore, it was a clear violation of rules.
Further, the Court relied on Rule 96 of the Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2001 regarding issuance of certificate for transportation of animals, and Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 stipulating special requirements for vehicles transporting livestock regarding space, ban on the use of the same vehicle to carry any other goods and issuance of a license by the R.T.O for vehicle carrying animals. The Court said that the above rules were mandatory to follow.
The Court further relied on Ansar Ahmad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1123, where the facts of the case were identical to the instant case. Thus, the Court said that the decision decided by the Court would be applicable with equal force to the present case. The Court held that the animals were subjected to cruelty of an aggravated form as 18 fully grown animals were crammed in small tempo.
The Court found the order passed by ASG to be well-reasoned and dismissed the instant petition.
[Sohil Kureshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1565, Decided on 12-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in the case:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocate Laique Hussain
Counsel for the respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor Mayuri Deshmukh, Advocate Raju R. Gupta
