Back
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J
Saraju Ray – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl.Pet./574/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S C Biswas, F A Hassan
For the Respondents: B Sarma, D Das
Interim custody of animals (zimma) cannot be granted to an accused who is prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to those animals, as animal welfare outweighs ownership claims at the interim stage.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody (Zimma) - Primacy of Animal Welfare - Where an accused is prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to animals by violating transport rules, interim custody of the animals should not be granted to the accused, regardless of claims of ownership. (Para 15, 16)
(B) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act - Duty of Care - Transport of Animals Rules - Transporting a number of cattle in a vehicle exceeding the prescribed limit under Rule 56(c) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, constitutes a violation of the animal's safety and health, justifying the denial of custody to the transporter. (Para 13, 14)
Issues: Whether the petitioner, claiming to be the bonafide owner, is entitled to interim custody of seized cattle when prima facie evidence of cruelty and violation of transport rules exists.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the petition for zimma of seized cattle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. competing claims of ownership versus allegations of statutory violations during transport. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. application of prevention of cruelty to animals act and transport rules regarding vehicle capacity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. precedent prohibiting interim custody for accused persons prima facie guilty of animal cruelty. (Para 16) |
| 5. evaluation of evidence and dismissal of the petition based on documentary discrepancies. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
By way of this application filed under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 07.05.2021, passed by the learned CJM, Barpeta, in Barpeta PS Case No. 298/2021, whereby the learned Court has granted interim custody of 24 nos. of seized cattles to the respondent No. 2/Dhyan Foundation and order dated 17.08.2021, passed by the learned SDJM (S), Barpeta, in Barpeta PS Case No. 298/2021, rejecting the petition of the petitioner for release of seized cattles (17 nos. of cows and 13 nos. of calves) to his custody on zimma.
2. Heard Mr S C Biswas, learned counsel, assisted by Mr F A Hassan, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner and Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Also heard Mr D Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 04.05.2021, one ASI Nabajit Deka of Howly Police Station lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of that Police Station, alleging inter alia, that on 03.05.2021, while the accused persons were illegally transporting cattle, a group of dacoits intercepted their truck bearing Registration No. BR-01-GG-9727 and kidnapped the accused and thereafter the other associates of dacoits hijacked the aforesaid truck which was loaded with cattles, but subsequently, the aforesaid truck was intercepted by the local people near Kujarpith. Accordingly, a case was registered as Howly PS Case No. 298/2021, under Sections 120(B)/379/365/395 IPC, read with Section 11 (1) (a) (b) (e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
4. On the strength of aforesaid FIR, the present petitioner was arrested and on 12.07.2021, this Court granted bail to him.
5. It is contended that the respondent No. 2, a registered trust dedicated to the cause of animal welfare activities, filed an application under Section 451 of CrPC before the learned Court of CJM, Barpeta, praying for release of the seized 24 nos. of cattles to their custody on zimma. The learned Court of CJM, Barpeta, vide impugned order dated 07.05.2021, granted interim custody of 24 nos. of seized cattles to their custody on zimma.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner submits that he being the bonafide owner of the aforesaid seized cattles have filed an application, being Petition No. 1403/2021, registered under Section 451 CrPC before the learned Court of SDJM (S), Barpeta, praying for release of the seized cattles (17 nos. of cows and 13 nos. of calves) to his custody on zimma. After hearing both sides, the learned Court of SDJM (S), Barpeta, vide impugned order dated 17.08.2021, rejected the aforesaid petition, as because the seized cattles were given interim custody to the respondent No. 2/Dhyan Foundation.
7. Further, the petitioner contends that the learned Court below failed appreciate the record in its proper perspective and arrived at a wrong conclusions and therefore, the impugned orders dated 07.05.2021 and 17.08.2021 are liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned Court ignored the fact that the petitioner is the bonafide owner of the seized cattles (17 nos. of cows and 13 nos. of calves) and in this respect, he produced relevant documents before the Court below to substantiate his aforesaid claim. But the learned Court, in a most whimsical manner, without appreciating the matter in proper perspective, has rejected the prayer made by the petitioner to
