JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the matter is heard today finally.

2. By way of this petition under Section 451 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 01.01.2020 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morbi in Muddamal Application below Exhibit-1 filed in connection with the complaint being C.R. No. II – 506 of 2019 registered with Morbi Taluka Police Station under Sections 5, 8 and 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (for short, “the GAP Act”), Sections 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 11(1)(c), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(h) and 11(1)(k) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (for short, “the PCA Act”), Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act, Sections 177 & 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 8 & 9 of The Carriage By Road Act, as also the order passed by the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Morbi in Criminal Revision Application No.12 of 2020 whereby, the said revision was dismissed and the order dated 01.01.2020 came to be confirmed; and to direct release of the muddamal vehicle – Ashok Eicher Pro Truck bearing registration No. GJ-33-T-9972, on suitable terms and conditions.

3. Learned advocate Mr. T. J. Jani for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-33-T-9972 and is into the business of transportation. The said vehicle was intercepted by the complainant and six cows and five claves were found in the said vehicle. It was alleged that the said animals were transported in a cruel manner, without any basic facility and, therefore, FIR being II-CR No.506 of 2019 was registered with Morbi Taluka Police Station, Morbi. The petitioner urges that the vehicle is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and if the same remains idle, its condition shall deteriorate and later, it would not be of any use.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jani submitted that the respondent-authority has not followed the requisite procedure while ordering seizure of the muddamal vehicle. The Courts below ought to have considered the fact that the cattle were not carried for slaughter purpose and instead they were transported for being sold for the purpose of milking. He submitted that considering the allegations made in the impugned complaint, at the most, the petitioner would be liable for payment of fine. Learned advocate has produced on record a copy of the certificate dated 07.10.2019 issued by the Sarpanch of “Sri Nava Kataria Gram Panchayat”, Village : Nava Kataria, Taluka : Bhachau – Kutch to bring home the point that the petitioner is into the business of milking of cattle and uses the vehicle in question for cattle transportation.

4. In the impugned complaint, the provisions of Sections 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 11(1)(c), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(h) & 11(1)(k) of the PCA Act have been invoked against the petitioner. Section 11 relates to “Treating animals cruelly” and sub-section (1) thereof consists of clauses (a) to (o) laying down the different circumstances as to when an offence under the said provisions would be attracted. For all the offences under clauses (a) to (o) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the PCA Act, the punishment provided is fine which shall not be less than Ten Rupees but which may extend to Fifty Rupees in the case of a first offence and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than Twenty Five Rupees but which may extend to One Hundred Rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both. Clause (a) of Section 11(1) reads - “beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; Clause (b) reads - “employs in any work or labour or