THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9907 OF 2025

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set- aside the order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.843 of 2025 in Cr.No.543 of 2025, on the file of the learned VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, wherein, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition seeking custody of 3 bulls.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property and is the father of the accused. The allegation against the accused is that he was transporting 3 bulls in a vehicle and that the bulls were in a very poor condition and on questioning by the Police, the accused failed to produce any document with regard to the permission for transporting the said bulls. The record further reveals that on seizure, the said animals are kept at Mahadevpur Goshala. The accused is facing allegations under Section 11 read with 38 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCAA), 1960.

3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there is no proof to justify the release of bulls to the petitioner during pendency of trial. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the Gazette Notification dated 23.05.2017 under G.S.R.495(E)-Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2016, wherein Rule 3 reads as follows:-

“3. Custody of Animals pending litigation- When an animal has been seized under the provision of the Act or the Rules made there under –

(a) The authority seizing the animals shall ensure health inspection, identification and marking such animal, through the jurisdictional veterinary officer deployed at Government Veterinary Hospital of the area and marking may be done by ear tagging or by chipping or by any less irksome advance technology but marking by hot branding, cold branding and other injuries marking shall be prohibited;

(b) The Magistrate may direct the animal to be housed at an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organization or Gaushala during the pendency of the litigation.”

5. The above said Rule stipulates that seized animals must undergo health inspection, identification and marking through the jurisdictional government veterinary officer, employing non-invasive techniques such as ear tagging or chipping while expressly prohibiting injurious methods like hot or cold branding. Further, the said Rule authorizes the Magistrate to direct that the animal be housed at an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organization or Gaushala during the pendency of proceedings. Since these statutory safeguards are aimed at ensuring the humane treatment and safety of animals pending litigation and must be observed in letter and spirit, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not proper to return the animals to the custody of the petitioner herein.

6. Hence, the animals shall remain in the custody of Mahadevpur Gaushala till disposal of the case. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court and hence the same is upheld.

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

8. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Dt.11.09.2025 ysk