ORDER

This criminal petition filed under Section 397 r/w

401 of Cr.P.C, is by the complainant, challenging the order of the trial Court, by which on the basis of accused pleading guilty for the offence punishable under Section 429 IPC, Section 93 of Karnataka Police Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the trial Court sentenced the accused only to pay fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by the rank before the trial Court.

3. Complainant Harish, Honorary Animal Welfare Officer, filed a complaint against the accused alleging that on 15.03.2016, in the evening, accused removed eight puppies aged 20 days old from the drain near her house and flung them in a nearby site, as a result of which they died. When questioned, she did not show any remorse and think that she has not done anything wrong. She blocked the drain so that the pups and their mother could not go back to the drain.

4. Based on the complaint, the concerned police have registered case against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 429 IPC, Section 93 of Karnataka Police Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. After completing the investigation, the concerned police filed charge sheet against the accused for the above offences.

5. After due service of summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and pleaded guilty to the charges leveled against her. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced her to pay fine as under:

"Accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.700/- for the offence p/u/s 429 IPC and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days.

Accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence p/u/s 93 of K.P. Act and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Accused is convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/- for the offence p/u/s 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days."

6. Not being satisfied with the quantum of punishment imposed, the complainant filed appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C before the Session Court. After securing the presence of accused and considering the arguments of both sides, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal by holding that in exercise of its discretionary power, the trial Court has imposed the punishment and it is not a case to interfere.

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court, the complainant is before this Court, contending that the order passed by both Courts below is contrary to the facts and gravity of the case. After investigation, the concerned police filed charge sheet against the accused. When the accused voluntarily appeared and pleaded guilty, both trial Court and Sessions Court have committed error in taking lenient view by awarding a flea bite sentence. It is unjust, improper and liable to be set aside. The Courts below ought to have exercised judicial discretion with proper application of mind. The trial Court without hearing the accused has imposed the sentence. The punishment imposed is not in commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the accused. Article 51 (A) (g) of the Constitution of India mandate that it is the duty of every citizen to have compassion for living creatures and sought for enhancing the punishment imposed on the accused.

8. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel representing the complainant has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Animal Welfare Board of India Vs.

A.Nagaraja and Ors. (A.Nagaraja)1 (ii) Bhartiya Govansh Rakshna Sanverdhan Parishad Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

(Bhartiya Govansh Rakshna)2 (iii) Lalit Miglani Vs. State of Uttarakhan & Ors.

(Lalit Miglani)3 (iv) Thomas Vs. State of Kerala (Thomas)4 (v) State of Punjab Vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors.

(Balwinder Singh)5 (vi) Soman