IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
MD. SIRAJUL ISLAM S/O LATE HASAN ALI – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 429 of 2022
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 397/401, 451/457 - Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 - Section 13, 11(5), (9), 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Section 11, 35(2) - Preservation of Cruelty to Animal (Care and Maintenance of Case property Animal) Rules 2017 - Rule 3(a) - Cattle Were Stolen To Slaughter House - Failed To Produce Valid Documents Of Cattle - S.I. lodged one F.I.R. to Officer-In-Charge, to effect that on that day, acting on a tip of, they have apprehended one Truck, found carrying 24 Nos. of cattle therein - And driver of vehicle and the helper of vehicle when asked for, failed to produce valid documents of said cattle, and as such, it is suspected that cattle were stolen to slaughter house - They also found that cattle were being carried in congested manner in vehicle without sufficient space, and thereby subjected them to cruelty - Accordingly, S.I. had seized Truck, 24 numbers of cattle with five numbers of vehicle key, preparing seizure list. Para 9
Finding of the Court :
In case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Others, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as This takes Court to answer question whether respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to relief of interim custody of goats and sheep seized pursuant to filing of Complaint registered with Police Station - Fact that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are owners of goats and sheep seized is not disputed either by appellant No. 1 or by contesting respondents - Though respondent No. 8 has, by filing counter reply, pointed out that officials of Panjarapole at Patan are taking best care of goats and sheep seized in instant case, this Court finds that keeping goats and sheep in custody of respondent No. 8 would serve purpose of none - Admittedly, respondent Nos. 1 to 6, by vocation, trade in goats and sheep - Probably a period of more than one and half years has elapsed by this time and by production of goats and sheep seized before court, prosecution cannot prove that they were subjected to cruelty by accused because no marks of cruelty would be found by this time - Trade in which respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are engaged, is not prohibited by any law - On facts and in circumstances of case this Court is of opinion that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 would be entitled to interim custody of goats and sheep seized in case during pendency of the trial, of course, subject to certain conditions - Keeping ratios, laid down in aforementioned cases in mind, while impugned order of learned court below is examined in light of facts and circumstances on record, this court left unconvinced that same withstands test of legality, propriety and correctness - Therefore, submissions, so advanced by learned counsel for respondents cannot be acceded to - In given facts and circumstances on record and also in view of discussion and finding herein above, Court find that present case is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment and order of this court, in Criminal Revision Petition and as such, petitioner is entitled to similar relief, granted to petitioner of aforesaid case - Accordingly, it is provided that seized 24 numbers of cattles shall be released in interim custody of petitioner pending trial, on following terms and conditions.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. L. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent.
2. In this petition, under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the order, dated 28.07.2022, so passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, in connection with Dergaon P.S. Case No. 80/2022. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking custody of 24 Nos. of cattle, which were seized in connection with the aforementioned case.
3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on the grounds that there is no legal bar in releasing the seized cattle in the custody of the petitioner, who is the owner of the said cattle and that he had purchased the same from Dergaon cow-buffalo market, under Dergaon Municipality, after payment of necessary dues and he has proper documents and that he was carrying them to Nagaon and that the learned court below had failed to appreciate the law in this regard in its proper perspective and that being the owner of the cattle, he has preferential right to receive the same in custody. Therefore it is contended to allow the petition.
5. Mr. Chutia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. C.J.M. Golaghat, suffers from manifest illegality and impropriety and the same is not sustainable in law and that there is no embargo in the Assam Cattle preservation Act, 2021 in transporting cattle from one district to another district within the state and no permit is required in this regard and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.
5.1. Referring to a Judgment and Order of this court in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 321/2022, dated 17.08.2022, Mr. Chutia, further submits that in the said case this Court, was pleased to grant interim custody of the seized catt
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....
Point of Law : Without recording such satisfaction, it cannot be said that the impugned order so passed by the learned Court below, withstand test of legality, propriety and correctness.
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....
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.
Custody of animals under the PCA Act must prioritize their welfare, and ownership must be substantiated to prevent further cruelty; interim custody cannot be granted based on forged ownership documen....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.