Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1803
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
R. Sakthivel & Another
Versus
State by Inspector of Police Chavady Police station & Others
CRL.R.C. Nos. 1025, 1026, 1093, 1106 & 1107 of 2013 & Connected M.Ps
Decided on: 04-07-2014
S. Doraisamy, S. Rajendirakumar for M/s. Norton & Grant, C. Iyyapparaj, Govt. Advocate (crl.side), No appearance, R. Muniyapparaj for Vargees Amal Raj, C. Iyyapparaj, G.A. Govt. Advocate (Crl.side), A. Velmurugan, Advocates.
The discretion to grant interim custody of seized animals should be exercised based on sound principles, considering factors such as the nature of the alleged offence, the condition of the animals, and previous court decisions.
Headnote:
Cattle - Interim Custody - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Sections 29, 35 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the interim custody of cattle seized by the authorities. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of the cattle and sought their return, while the respondents argued that the cattle were transported in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Transport Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the discretion to grant interim custody should be exercised based on sound principles and not on vagaries. It considered the provisions of the Act and Transport Rules, as well as previous court decisions, to determine the entitlement to interim custody. The court partially allowed the revision petitions, directing the return of the cattle to the petitioners except for the cows, which were to remain with the third respondent until the conclusion of the trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the owners of the seized cattle were entitled to interim custody, considering the alleged violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Transport Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion to grant interim custody should be exercised based on sound principles and relevant factors, including the nature of the alleged offence, the condition of the animals, and the possibility of further cruelty. It also considered previous court decisions and the provisions of the Act and Transport Rules to determine the entitlement to interim custody.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the revision petitions, directing the return of the cattle to the petitioners except for the cows, which were to remain with the third respondent until the conclusion of the trial. It dismissed the remaining revision petitions and emphasized the need for strict enforcement of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978.
1. Sine common questions of law arose for consideration in all these Criminal Revision Cases, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in Crl. R.C. Nos. 1025 of 2013 and 1026 of 2013, are aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P.Nos.4763 & 4762 of 2013 respectively dated 31.7.2013, by which the request made by the petitioners for return of 24 cattle for interim custody came to be rejected.
3. The petitioner in Crl. R.C. Nos. 1093, 1106, 1107 of 2013 is one Ms. Sheela Subramanian, Member of People for Cattle in India. The first respondent in these Revisions claims to be the owners of the cattle and the third respondent is the Indian Institute of Animal Welfare, in whose care and custody, the cattle are at present handed over. The petitioners in these Revisions challenged the order passed in C.M.P.Nos.4130, 4131, 4132 of 2013 dated 21.8.2013, whereby the learned Magistrate directed the cattle be handed over to the first respondent for interim custody, subject to certain conditions.
4. Mr. S. Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.1025, 1026 of 2013, submitted that the Courts below did not consider the claim made by the petitioners in a proper prospective and failed to note that there is no prohibition in releasing the cattle to the petitioners by applying Section 29 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Act). The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are the owners of the cattle and they have not violated any of the provisions of the Act nor committed inhuman treatment to the animals; that no cattle was injured while transporting and the transport was arranged to take them to some other place for agricultural purpose. Further, it is submitted that there is no previous conviction and hence the petitioners should be granted interim custody of the cattle. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the third respondent in whose care and custody cattle have been given now has absolutely no jurisdiction to make any objection and that he is not entitled to be heard.
5. The learned counsel referred to the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submitted that the said allegations are totally vague. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MANAGER, PINJRAPOLE DEUDAR AND ANR v. CHAKRAM MORAJI NAT AND OTHERS [1998 CRI.L.J.4082]. The learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BHARATH AMRATLAL KOTHARI & ANR v. DOSUKHAN SAMADKHAN SINDHI & ORS., and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case issued directions to return of goats and sheep to the owners, subject to certain conditions. The learned counsel further referred to the decision of this Court in the case of BLUE CROSS OF INDIA v. S.A.ABBAS MANTHIRI & ANR in Crl.R.C.No.476 of 2013 dated 21.6.2013, and submitted that Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner therein before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.6027-6029 of 2013, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.8.2013. Further, it is submitted that if the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PINJRAPOLE DEUDAR (supra), is applied to the case on hand, the petitioner is entitled to get interim custody of the cattle as he is the owner of the animals and has not been found guilty of the offence under the Act earlier and that the cattle were in health condition.
6. Mr. C. Iyyappa Raj, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the cattle are at present under the care and custody of the third respondent and a status report was also filed during February 2014 and at that point of time, one cow had died, one was serious and two cows were sick and the area in which the cattle have been kept is about an extent of 1 acre and 80 cents and there is also a compound wall and a small hut.
