Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Dhyan Foundation, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Ditul Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1, and Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 11.
2. This criminal petition, under Section 482, read with Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order dated 11.05.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 485/2022, under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 11.05.2022, the learned Court below has directed for releasing of 110 numbers of Goats, which were seized by police, and were in the interim custody of the petitioner, to the respondents.
3. The factual background, leading to filing of this petition, is briefly stated as under :
Section 11(5) provides that “on receipt of the report, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class may, on his being satisfied that there is enough material to presume that a prima-facie offence under this Act....
Section 11(1)(a) provides that:-If any person 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....
The custody of seized animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should be given to institutions capable of providing proper care and maintenance, and possession should not be handed over....
Point of Law : Section 451 Cr.P.C. it appears that unless owner of the animal in respect of which he is facing prosecution, is deprived of the custody (which can be done only on his conviction under ....
Interim custody of seized property under Section 451 of Cr. P.C. should be granted absent rival claims, focusing on preservation pending trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused, prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to the animals, was not entitled to interim custody of the seized cattle.
Ownership of animals does not guarantee custody if the owner fails to comply with legal requirements for their transport and care, as established under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and re....
The necessity of proving ownership and the lack of locus standi for a party to challenge custody orders in the absence of an FIR or ongoing investigation under relevant animal welfare laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
