Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Arunachala Animal Sanctuary & Rescue Shelter, Rep. by R. Rajasekaran, Thiruvannamalai - Appellant
Versus
Venkatesh & Others - Respondent
Crl. R.C. Nos. 670 to 673 of 2015 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 1,1,1,1 & 2,2,2,2 of 2015
Decided On : 19-09-2022
For the Petitioner:A.M. Amutha Ganesh, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, T.S. Shankar, R3, P. Harish, Advocates, R2, N.S. Suganthan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
Rescued cattle should not be returned to offenders for temporary custody unless ownership is proved and cruelty to the animal is disproved. Seizure and care of rescued cattle should be in accordance with the guidelines and rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Headnote:
Cruelty to Animals Act - Rescued Cattle - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 - Rule 96
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the transportation of cattle without permission, leading to the rescue of the cattle. The court considered the legality of returning the rescued cattle to the offenders and the expenses incurred by the petitioner in caring for the cattle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of returning the rescued cattle to the offenders was contrary to the Act and Rules and was illegal. It also directed the payment of expenses to the petitioner for maintaining the cattle.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of returning rescued cattle to the offenders, the payment of expenses for maintaining the cattle, and the enforcement of guidelines and rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that rescued cattle should not be returned to offenders for temporary custody unless ownership is proved and cruelty to the animal is disproved. It also emphasized the seizure of cattle transported without following the guidelines and rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Final Decision: The court issued directions for the handling of rescued cattle, including seizure and care by registered Goshalas, payment of maintenance expenses, and prohibition of returning cattle to offenders for temporary custody until the trial's disposal.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.R.P.No.4 of 2015, dated 29.06.2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai dated 23.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1619 of 2015 and set aside the same.
Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.R.P.No.5 of 2015, dated 29.06.2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai dated 23.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1621 of 2015 and set aside the same.
Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.R.P.No.6 of 2015, dated 29.06.2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai dated 23.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1622 of 2015 and set aside the same.
Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.R.P.No.7 of 2015, dated 29.06.2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai dated 23.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1623 of 2015 and set aside the same.)
Common Order:
1. These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by one the custodian of Goshala by name, Arunachala Animal Sanctuary and Rescue Shelter, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below returning the cattle which were transported contrary to Chapter IV of The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
2. The brief facts of the case is that on 15.03.2015 based on the complaint given by one Venkatesh, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.145 of 2015. Pursuant to the complaint, a lorry which was transporting cattle without permission to transport them, was intercepted and the cattle were rescued. Out of 40 cattle one cow died, while in the course of transport itself. 39 cattle were handed over to the Goshala administered by the petitioner herein and the petitioner was taking care of them till 23.03.2015. The offenders claiming that the trial Court has ordered to return the cattle back to their custody, came to the Goshala maintained by the petitioner and forcibly took away the cattle. Against the order of returning the cattle to the temporary custody of the accused, the defacto complainant filed an appeal before the District Court to set aside the order. However, the same got dismissed. In the said circumstances, these revision petitions are filed stating that the order of returning the rescued cattle to the accused is contrary to the Act and Rules and it is illegal. Furthermore, the petitioner, who has provide shelter to the rescued cattle, was not paid due expenses and not heard before the returning the cattle.
3. This Court, after considering the manner in which the cattle were handed over to the offenders for temporary custody caused summons to the accused persons and to return the cattle back to the Court and also invited a report from the Courts below. The offenders through their respective counsel reported that cattle which were taken the custody by them. The Magistrate, who has ordered custody of the cattle to the offenders had not taken any action for forfeiture of bond. In the said circumstances, the matter was posted today for further orders.
4. In continuation of the earlier order passed by this Court on 21.07.2022, the Judicial Magistrate filed report and informed the accused persons who took back the temporary custody of the cattle had deposited the bond amount.
5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Rule 96 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 contemplates before transportation, a valid certificate issued by a
