Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Dhyan Foundation – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Harsh Pandya, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 & 2 and Mr. T. Chutia, learned counsel for the private respondents, No. 3 to 8.
2. Legality, propriety and correctness of the order, dated 06.04.2021, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Biswanath Chariali, in Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No.33/2021, under Section 420/429/511 IPC, read with Section 11(a)(d)(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, is challenged in this petition, under Section 397/401, read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner-Dhyan Foundation. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Biswanath Chariali, allowed custody of the seized 62 numbers of cattle, in favour of the private respondent Nos.3 to 8, by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for interim custody.
3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-
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....
Section 35 of the Act provides that for proper care and treatment of animals in respect of which offences under this Act have been committed, such animal can be kept in pinjrapole with a direction th....
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 : 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 ....
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.
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 discretion of the Magistrate in granting interim custody and the need for expeditious trial proceedings to avoid prolonged custody of seized animals.
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
