SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Abbas Manthiri and Ors. – Petitioner 
Versus
State, Represented by Station House Officer, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024
Decided On : 31-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. John Sathiyan, Senior Counsel for Mr. A. Thameem Mohideen.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. A. Damodaran, Addl.Public Prosecutor, Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel For Mr. Rahul Balaji, Ms. Madhumitha. J.

Interim custody of animals transported in violation of animal welfare and transport laws must remain with authorized shelters until trial concludes, ensuring prevention of cruelty despite claims of lawful purpose.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Sections 4, 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 35(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 429; Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958 - Section 4; Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 (including Rules 47 to 56), Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2009 - Rules 50 and 56; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 - Rule 8.

(B) Illegal transportation of cattle in overcrowded and inhumane conditions violates statutory provisions designed to prevent cruelty and ensure animal welfare. Proper certification and sufficient space, water, and fodder are imperative during transit. Interim custody of seized animals should remain with authorized shelters until trial conclusion, especially when allegations of cruelty and intent of slaughter arise. (Paras 8, 11, 12, 13 and 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners transported significant numbers of cattle via container lorries allegedly in cramped and inhumane conditions intended for slaughter in Kerala. The cattle were seized by police upon complaints citing violations of animal cruelty and transportation laws, and sent to registered shelters. Petitioners sought interim custody of cattle claiming agricultural and breeding purposes; the Magistrate refused interim custody, prompting criminal revision petitions.

Findings of Court:
The Court found clear violation of transport and animal cruelty rules, including overcrowding and use of chili irritants to keep cattle awake. Cattle were transported without valid certifications and insufficient care. As such, interim custody rightly remained with shelters. Arguments regarding breeding purpose were found inconsistent as most cattle were castrated. Trial court orders were upheld dismissing petitions.

Issues: Whether interim custody of cattle should be granted to petitioners despite alleged transportation violations and cruelty, and whether transportation was for permitted agricultural purposes or clandestine slaughter.

Ratio Decidendi: Strict compliance with welfare statutes and transport regulations is mandatory to prevent animal cruelty. Interim custody appropriately remains with government-recognized shelters pending trial to safeguard animal welfare. Claims of lawful purpose cannot override evidence of cruel transportation and lack of valid certification.

Result: Criminal Revision Petitions dismissed with interim custody of seized cattle to continue with designated shelters pending trial outcome.

Table of Content
1. seizure and rescue of cattle transported in overcrowded and inhumane conditions violating statutes. (Para 1 , 2 , 16 , 17)
2. petitioners' claim of lawful agricultural transport versus allegations of illegal slaughter intent. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. respondents' objection based on animal cruelty and illegal transport for slaughtering purposes. (Para 6 , 7 , 14)
4. legal framework and judicial precedents supporting seizure, interim custody with shelters, and transport regulation compliance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. court’s assessment of evidence, applicable regulations, and required welfare guidelines during animal transit. (Para 15 , 18)
6. dismissal of petitions and reaffirmation of interim custody with shelters pending trial. (Para 19)

ORDER :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

The Criminal Revision Cases filed praying to set aside the order dated 22.07.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1137 of 2024 & Crl.M.P.No.1138 of 2024 respectively, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, and the order dated 10.08.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurantakam, consequently to direct the 1st respondent to release 22 Bulls and 2 Calves, 21 Bulls and 74 buffaloes respectively in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2024, Crl.R.C.No.1433 of 2024 and Crl.R.C.No.1461 of 2024 and handover the same to the Petitioners.

2. Facts, which are germane for disposal of the Revisions can be summarised as follows:-

On the complaint of the 2nd Respondent/defaco complainant, who are the Trust Member of “Almighty Animal Care Trust”, and State President of “Gau Raksha Dal” respectively Crl.R.C.Nos.1421 & 1433 of 2024 and Crl.R.C.No.1461 of 2024 gave complaints before the 1st Respondent Police that the Petitioners illegally transporting Cattle in Container Lorries, bearing Registration Nos.TN-60-AV-4227 and TN-60- Q-3265 and TN-51-AG-7777. When the Container Lorries intercepted by the Police, they found in the Container Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-60-AV-4227 with 22 Cattle & 2 Calves and in the other Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-60-Q-3265 having 21 Cattle and in other Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-51-AG-7777, having 74 Cattle in a cruel manner. The animals were rescued. On enquiry, it was informed by the drivers of the lorries that the Cattle were taken to Kerala for slaughter. Since the Cattle in all the lorries transported to Kerala in inhumane conditions, for the meat illegally, tightly cramped, without food and water, and the Cattle are below 10 years in age, the case in Crime No.192/2004 and Crime No.216/2024 registered respectively for the offence U/s. 429 of IPC., r/w Sections 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d) & 4 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 325 BNS Act r/w Section 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, against the owners of the Container Lorries and others. The Container Lorries and Cattle were seized by the Police. Upon seizure of the Cattle, they were sent to “Sri Gokulakrishna Kosala”, Tiruvallur District, a private barn, and “Mona's Heaven for Domestic Animals Trust” under an interim detention of the buffaloes by the 1st Respondent Police.

3. Mr.R.John Sathiyan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners are the owners of 22 Cattle & 2 Calves, 21 Cattle and 74 Cattle respectively seized by the 1st respondent in Crime No.192/2024 and Crime No.216/2024, which were purchased for agricultural activities and for breeding purposes and transported from Andhra Pradesh to Theni Cumbum and Pollachi through the Container Lorries, with valid certificates. On the complaint of the defaco complainant, the 1st Respondent Police seized the Lorries, including the Cattle and and sent the same to “Sri Gokulakrishna Kosala” and “Mona's Heaven for Domestic Animals Trust”. The petitioners purchased the Cattle in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, by paying necessary Cess to Agriculture Market Committee Saluchinthala, at Nellore, Andhra P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top