Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
K.P. UNNI – Appellant
Versus
SALONI SAKARIA – Respondent
Crl.MC 3941 2023
Animals - Animal Welfare - IPC Section 289, IPC Section 429, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 Sections 3, 11(1)(a), 11(1)(l) - The court emphasized the importance of animal welfare and the legal prohibitions against cruelty, leading to the decision to transfer custody of the birds to the Thiruvananthapuram Zoo, ensuring their protection.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged a Magistrate's order directing the custody of birds to a Zoo based on allegations of animal cruelty, following a PETA complaint regarding the treatment of the birds owned by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie evidence of cruelty against the birds due to clipped flight feathers, violating provisions under the cruelty act. The custody at the zoo was deemed necessary to ensure their well-being.
Issues: Whether the learned Magistrate correctly directed the custody of the birds to the Zoo based on the evidence of cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The learned Magistrate acted within the scope of the law, prioritizing the animals' welfare, aligning with provisions in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves allegations of animal cruelty concerning birds owned by the petitioners, who are associated with the Great Bombay Circus (!) (!) (!) .
The police seized the birds following a complaint by a representative of PETA, citing violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Indian Penal Code, specifically related to cruelty and mutilation (!) (!) .
Expert reports confirmed that the flight feathers of the birds had been cut, which was considered prima facie evidence of cruelty and distress to the animals (!) (!) .
The court observed that cutting the flight feathers and keeping the birds in cages could amount to cruelty under the relevant statutes, and that the birds' natural rights to fly were being impeded (!) (!) .
The order of the Magistrate transferred custody of the birds to the Thiruvananthapuram Zoo, which is recognized and overseen by the Central Zoo Authority, with conditions for their care and periodic monitoring (!) (!) .
The petitioners argued that the order was illegal, claiming that the birds' missing feathers could be due to natural causes like molting or infighting, and that their environment was suitable and humane (!) (!) .
The respondents and public prosecutor emphasized that the cutting of flight feathers and prolonged confinement in cages constituted cruelty, supported by expert veterinary reports and statutory provisions (!) (!) .
The court noted that the law aims to protect animal welfare, recognizing the importance of humane treatment and the internationally recognized freedoms for animals, including freedom from pain, distress, and unnecessary mutilation (!) (!) - (!) .
The court emphasized that the welfare of animals under legal proceedings must be safeguarded, and that the standards for care should comply with established rules and guidelines (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Magistrate's order was within legal bounds, based on expert evidence and statutory provisions, and that the transfer of custody to the zoo was justified to ensure the birds' welfare (!) .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TH FRIDAY, THE 16 DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 3941 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMP 3759/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THRISSUR PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.P. UNNI AGED 70 YEARS MANAGER, GREAT BOMBAY CIRCUS, RESIDING AT "KATTIKAT HOUSE", ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN, PIN - 682026.
2 THE GREAT BOMBAY CIRCUS (REG. NO. 2470/484)
KALYANI NIVAS, COURT ROAD, THALASSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT.
KERALA. PIN 670101, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI. K. M. SANJEEV, S/O. LATE SRI. K. M BALAGOPAL, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALYANI NIVAS, COURT ROAD, THALASSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. KERALA, PIN - 670101.
BY ADVS.
M.K.SUMOD VIDYA M.K.
RAJ CAROLIN V.
THUSHARA.K PADMA LAKSHMI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/STATE:
1 SALONI SAKARIA FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN, CRUELTY RESPONSE COORDINATOR, PEOPLE FOR ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA) INDIA, P.O BOX NO. 28260, JUHU, MUMBAI, PIN - 400049.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001.
3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
NAYANPALLY RAMOLA(MAH/6224/2014)
SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, SR. P P THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Being aggrieved by Annexure-A7 common order by which the learned Judicial Magistrate of the Class-I, Thrissur, had directed 3 Macaw and 1 Cockatoo birds owned by the 2nd petitioner to be accommodated at the Thiruvananthapuram Zoo, subject to various conditions, this petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Short facts of the case are as under:-
a) Based on a complaint lodged by a certain Saloni Sakaria, who claims to be the Cruelty Response Coordinator, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, Crime No.1083/2023 of the Trichur Town East Police Station was registered on 16.4.2023 inter alia for the offenses punishable under Sections 289 and 429 of the IPC and under Sections 3 , 11(1)(a), 11(1)(l), 26 and 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (“Act, 1960” for the sake of brevity). The specific allegation in the complaint is that ‘The Great Bombay Circus’ the 2nd petitioner herein, represented by the 1st petitioner who is its Manager, with full awareness and knowledge that birds shall not be exhibited, threatened, disabled or mutilated, carried out the aforesaid acts and exhibited them to the general public and thereby caused trauma to the captive animals. It was also alleged that the petitioners had used the birds like Macaw and Cockatoo without obtaining the Performing Animals Registration Certificate (PARC).
b) Immediately after registration of the crime, the animals were seized by the police and were subjected to a medical examination by a team of Government Veterinarians headed by the Chief Veterinary Officer, Thrissur. In the report submitted by them, the experts stated that insofar as one yellow Macaw is concerned, one of its flight feathers (2 Nos.) was cut. In the case of two Red Macaws, one or two flight feathers of both birds were cut. It is specifically noted that in the case of the large Macaw, two feathers were cut on the left wing, and in the case of the small bird, the flight feather on the right wing was cut. There were two Cockatoos, and the doctors found that two flight feathers were cut from both the wings of one bird.
c) Based on the report, the learned Magistrate was of the prima facie view that the petitioners had treated the birds with cruelty by cutting their flight feathers. The learned Magistrate also felt that keeping the birds in cages would be illegal confinement of such birds against their wish and against their right to fly around freely. An
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
