THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7415 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.545 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

2. I have heard Mr. R.Gopi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration number KA55A0938. A criminal case was initiated under Section 11 read with Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PCA Act’) on the allegation that the petitioner’s vehicle was used for the unlawful transportation of cattle. Consequently, the police seized the said vehicle. The petitioner subsequently filed an application before the trial court under Section 503 of the BNSS seeking interim custody of the vehicle. Upon consideration of the material on record, the trial court allowed the application conditionally. Aggrieved by the nature of the conditions imposed, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the condition imposed by the trial court—requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,200/- towards transportation costs and Rs.200/- per cattle per day from the date of seizure until the date of the order, for a total of 36 cattle is unduly burdensome and has caused significant financial distress. It is further submitted that the cattle have already been sold, and as such, holding the petitioner liable for ongoing maintenance costs is improper. Accordingly, counsel prays for the setting aside of the condition relating to daily maintenance charges imposed by the trial court.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2016 (‘the PCA Rules’), the owner of the vehicle is statutorily obligated to bear the expenses incurred for the transportation, medical treatment, and daily upkeep of the seized animals during the pendency of proceedings. It is argued that the amount fixed at Rs.200/- per animal per day is reasonable and consistent with statutory mandates. Therefore, the prosecution prays for the dismissal of the petition.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. Rule 4 of the PCA Rules specifies that the daily costs for transport, maintenance, and treatment of commonly seized animal species. Magistrates must adopt these rates as the minimum standards for cost determination under section 35(4) of the Act. For animal species not listed, the magistrate will determine costs based on the jurisdictional veterinary officer’s input.

8. Upon careful consideration of the statutory provisions, it is evident that the direction issued by the learned Magistrate requiring the deposit of funds and specifying the amount to be allocated for the daily maintenance and medical care of the cattle is in strict conformity with the stipulations set forth in the relevant rules. The Magistrate’s determination of a daily maintenance and medication cost of Rs.200/- per cattle is further found to be reasonable, particularly in the absence of any substantive evidence or material to suggest that such an amount is excessive or unduly burdensome.

9. In light of the prevailing circumstances and the necessity of ensuring the welfare and proper upkeep of the cattle throughout the pendency of the proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the prescribed rate of Rs.200/- per cattle per day is not unreasonable. No valid or tenable grounds have been presented that would warrant interference with the impugned order.

Ac