Back
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
M.R. SHAH, J
JIV DAYA MANDAL PANJARAPOL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1948 of 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR VIRAT G POPAT
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MR DC DAVE
The court upheld that animal welfare is paramount, emphasizing historical behavior of accused as critical in custody decisions for seized livestock.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Sections 5, 6, 10, 11(d)(3)(e) - Seizure of livestock for alleged transportation for slaughter - Revision granted against the Magistrate’s order not to handover livestock to accused - Court stressed on the implications of cruelty using the evidence provided in FIRs and historical antecedents of the accused to reclaim custody. (Paras 11, 14)
(B) Jurisdiction and discretion in handing over custody - The court reiterated the importance of the animal’s welfare and the lack of evidence regarding transportation for legitimate purposes, asserting the necessity of due diligence in prior offenses impacting current custody decisions. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Two vehicles carrying livestock were seized based on allegations under animal welfare laws. The initial Magistrate order granted custody to the applicant, while the revision quashed that upon petition. The Supreme Court's precedent played a key role in considering broader implications of animal welfare and the necessity of maintaining the custody decisions based on previous violations.
Findings of Court:
Evidence and historical behavior of the accused suggested a likelihood of cruelty; hence, reversal of the revisional court's order was affirmed as maintaining the integrity of animal welfare laws is paramount.
Issues: Whether the revisional court properly assessed the evidence showing intent to slaughter and the accused's historical behavior suggested risk of further cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the historical antecedents of the accused highlighted a potential for cruelty; hence, the Magistrate's discretion was justified and should be restored—prior decisions emphasizing animal welfare were binding.
Result: Petition succeeds.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts leading to the seizure of livestock and complaints against accused. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding judicial discretion and historical behavior of accused. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court’s observations on animal welfare and implications of custody decisions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's ruling on reversing the additional sessions judge's order. (Para 14) |
JUDGEMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1948 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= JIV DAYA MANDAL PANJARAPOL - Applicant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VIRAT G POPAT for Applicant(s) : 1, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR DC DAVE for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 27/08/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein – original respondent has prayed for an appropriate writ, order 2/15 JUDGMENT and/or direction quashing and setting aside the judgement and order dtd.21/11/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham at Kutch in Criminal Revision Application No.60 of 2006 in allowing the same by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhachau by which the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) passed an order below application Mark 22, 24, 19 and 34 directing that muddamal livestock be handed over to the petitioner herein during the pendency and final disposal of the trial arising out of the complaint being CR No.II-3126 of 2006.
2. The following few facts are necessary for disposal of the present petition:-
3. Two Tempoes loaded with 241 sheep and she goats were seized by the Bhachau Police Station for which a criminal complaint being CR No.II-3126 of 2006 came to be registered with Bhachau Police Station against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and other accused, for the offences punishable under secs.5, 6 and 10 of Bombay Animal Prevention Act and under secs.11(d)(3) (e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for illegally taking livestock of sheep and goats for slaughtering. The 3/15 JUDGMENT respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein applied for release of the said livestock before the learned Judicial Magistrate (FC), Bhachau at Kutch and requested to hand over the interim custody of the said livestock to them contending inter-alia that they have purchased the livestock and engaged the vehicle bearing GJ-12V-6492 being driven by Abdul Fakirmamad Sumar and Tofiq Mamad Lakha and handed over 124 she goats and vehicle No.GJ-1T-8000 being driven by one Haji Osman Gagada and Hussainsha Barkarsha entrusted 117 numbers of she goats and sheep who were carrying the said animals to village Lakhadia. That the learned Magistrate issued notice to the investigating officer and the investigating officer informed the learned Magistrate that the said livestock had been kept with the petitioner – Jiv Daya Mandal Panjarapol Bhachau at Kutch and he objected the release of the said livestock in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4. That the learned Magistrate, Bhachau at Kutch by his order dtd.13/10/2006 dismissed the application Mark 22 and 24, by which th
