Shrihari P. Davare, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for quashment of the order passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No. 177 of 2009 dated 14.12.2009, by releasing the cattle in favour of the petitioner and upholding the judgment passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 175/2009 dated 6.11.2009, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkheda.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is dealing in business of sale and purchase of animals since many years. Sindkheda Police Station has registered offence under CR No. 18/2009 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 11(d)(e)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and u/s 5 (1) 11 of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and seized 36 bullocks from the custody of the petitioner and the said First Information Report is annexed herewith (Exh ''A'' page 11).
5. There after petitioner herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 175/2009 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkhed for release of the said animals u/s 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 03.11.2009 (Exh B, page 15). Accordingly say of the respondent State was called for and said application was contested by the respondent State. Considering the rival submissions, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkheda, allowed said application by order passed thereon on 6.11.2009 (page 18) and thereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkheda directed to release the seized 36 bullocks (oxen) on execution of Suprutnama bond of Rs. 1 ,75,000 by imposing certain conditions as specified therein. It is the contention of the petitioner that accordingly, he complied with the said conditions by executing the bond and also by giving undertaking as per said order dated 6.11.2009, and on completion of the said formalities, even police authorities issued letter to the Director of respondent No. 2 to release the seized animals.
6. However, the petitioner contends that instead of releasing the animals in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 approached to Court of Sessions , Dhule by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 177/2009 and thereby challenged the order dated 6.11.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkheda, releasing the animals in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner appeared in the said Criminal Revision before said Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule. However, after hearing both the parties, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule, allowed said revision by order passed on 14.12.2009 and there by quashed and set aside the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkheda in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 175/2009 on 6.11.2009, directing the respondent No. 2, to release the animals in favour of the petitioner herein and further directed that custody of the said cattle be given to the said revision petitioner i.e. respondent No. 2 herein.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule, on 14.12.2009, reversing the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkheda dated 6.11.2009, the petitioner herein approached to this Court, praying for quashment of the said impugned order dated 14.12.2009, passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule in the said Criminal Revision Application No. 177/2009.
SUBMISSIONS:
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the bullocks in question and during the pendency of the criminal case, lodged against him, in pursuance of the First Information Report under CR No. 18/2009, the petitioner has preferred application u/s 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the interim custody of the said animals and since the petitioner is the rightful owner of the said animals, he is entitled for the interim custody of the said animals, during the pendency of the criminal case. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got valid licence to sell and purchase animals and he has purchased the oxen from village Khetiya District Badwani, which he was carrying to his field at village Sindkheda and at that time police personnel seized said animals, lodging the First Information Report against him for the offences stated therein. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also urged that in pursuance of the order of release of the animals, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkheda, on 6.11.2009, even the petitioner has executed the bond and undertaking as per the directions in the said order and thereby the petitioner undertook that after receipt of the interim custody of the said animals, he shall provide medical treatment to the said animals and shall submit the report thereof every month, before the Court and shall not sale, alter or change the nature of the animals till the disposal of the case and further undertook that he shall produce the said animals whenever called during the course of the trial and further stated that the petitioner shall abide by the said conditions.
9. To substantiate the contention of petitioners, Mrs. Ansari, relied upon the observations made in the case
10. Now adverting to the contention that u/s 35 (2), in the event of the animal not being sent to infirmary, the Magistrate is bound to give the interim custody to Pinjrapole, we find it difficult to accede to it. We have noted above the options available to the Magistrate u/s 35(2). That subsection vests in the Magistrate the discretion to give interim custody of the animal to Pinjrapole. The material part of subsection (shorn of other details) will read, the Magistrate may direct that the animal concerned shall be sent to a Pinjrapole. Subsection (2) does not say that the Magistrate shall sent the animals to Pinjrapole. It is thus evident that the expression "shall be sent" is part of the direction to be given by the Magistrate if in his discretion he decides to give interim custody to Pinjrapole. It follows that u/s 35(2) of the Act, the Magistrate has discretion to handover interim custody of the animal to Pinjrapole but he is not bound to handover custody of the animal to Pinjrapole in the event of not sending it to an infirmary. In a case where the owner is claiming the custody of the animal, Pinjrapole has no preferential right. In deciding whether the interim custody of the animal be given to the owner who is facing prosecution or to the Pinjrapole, the following factors will be relevant: (1) the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the owner; (2) whether it is the first offence alleged or he has been found guilty of offences under the Act earlier; (3) if the owner is facing the first prosecution under the Act, the animal is not liable to be seized, so the owner will have a better claim for the custody of the animal during the prosecution ; (4) the condition in which the animal was found at the time of inspection and seizure; (5) the possibility of the animal being again subjected to cruelty. There cannot be any doubt that establishment of Pinjrapole is with the laudable object of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals and providing protection to them and birds. But it should also be seen, (a) whether the Pinjrapole is functioning as an independent organization or under the scheme of the Board and is answerable to the Board; and (b) whether the Pinjrapole has good record of taking care of the animals given under its custody. A perusal of the order of the High Court shows that the High Court has taken relevant factors into consideration in coming to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to interfere in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the State to handover the custody of the animals to the owner.
Relying upon said observations Mrs. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner/owner is claiming the custody of the animals, respondent No. 2 has no preferential right. Moreover, she further urged that, while considering the interim custody of the animals to be given to the owner i.e. petitioner herein, who is facing prosecution or to the respondent No. 2, it must be taken into consideration that alleged offence is the first offence against the petitioner herein and therefore, the animals are not liable to be seized and the petitioner shall have better claim for the custody of the said animals as observed in the case cited supra.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the observations made in the case of
17. This takes the Court to answer the question whether respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to relief of interim custody of goats and sheep seized pursuant to filing of complaint No. IIC.R.3131 of 2008 registered with Deesa City Police Station. The fact that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are owners of the goats and sheep seized is not disputed either by the appellant No. 1 or by the contesting respondents. Though the respondent No. 8 has, by filing counter reply, pointed out that the officials of Pinjarapole at Patan are taking best care of the goats and sheep seized in the instant case, this Court finds that keeping the goats and sheep in the custody of respondent No. 8 would serve purpose of none. Admittedly, the respondent Nos 1 to 6 by vocation trade in goats and sheep. Probably a period of more than one and half years has elapsed by this time and by production of goats and sheep seized before the Court, the prosecution cannot prove that they were subjected to cruelty by the accused because no marks of cruelty would be found by this time. The trade in which respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are engaged, is not prohibited by any law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 would be entitled to interim custody of goats and sheep seized in the case during the pendency of the trial, of course, subject to certain conditions.
Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the animals in question be released in favour of the petitioner, since he is the rightful owner having preferential right over respondent No. 2, by way of interim custody and undertook to abide by the conditions, if any, imposed therefore.
11. Learned APP Mr. Kaldate, for respondent No. 1 opposed the present petition vehemently and submitted that when the said animals were seized, the driver i.e. petitioner and cleaner ran away, since they were transporting the said animals illegally, subjecting them to cruelty. It is also pointed out by learned APP that, had the petitioner purchased the said animals, he would not have tied the said animals tightly in cruel manner, that too, 36 animals in one truck and he shall have produced the receipts, at the time of seizure only, but so did not happen. Learned A.P. P. also canvassed that the animals are the national property and apprehension is posed that if the said animals are released in favour of the petitioner by way of interim custody, there is every possibility that they shall be taken for slaughtering purpose, causing irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money, and accordingly, submitted that present petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. Mr. B. R. Warma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 countered the arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the contents of the First Information Report are self explicit, which disclose that the animals in question were subjected to cruelty. When the said truck containing animals was accosted by the police personnel, the petitioner therein ran away and said conduct of the petitioner speaks volumes for itself. Moreover, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2 is a Charitable Trust, and respondent No. 2 has undertaken that it shall not charge any amount for the maintenance of the said animals, if the interim custody is handed over to respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 also canvassed that the Rules have been framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and said Rules are known as "the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978", and Rule 56 thereof prescribes certain conditions for transportation of cattle by goods vehicle, which more particularly comprises that no goods vehicle shall carry more than six cattle. However, in the instant case, about 36 cattle were being transported in the said truck and at that time, police personnel apprehended them and said animals were seized, whereas the petitioner herein ran away, and accordingly, learned Counsel submitted that there is apparent breach of said Rule at the hands of the petitioner, and therefore, there is no guarantee that petitioner would take due and necessary care of the said animals, if the interim custody is handed over to him. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 also posed the apprehension that if the animals in question are released in favour of the petitioner, by way of interim custody, there is every possibility that the petitioner would take the said animals for slaughtering purpose, without abiding by the terms and conditions, if any, imposed upon the petitioner.
13. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 also submitted that the cruelty alleged against the petitioner is u/s 11(1)(d)(e)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and also under Clause (a) thereof, since although petitioner, who allegedly is owner of the said animals, subjected said animals to the torture, while transporting them.
14. To substantiate the contention of respondent No. 2, learned Counsel relied upon the observations in the case of:
1) Akhil Bharat Krishi Go Seva Sangh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported at 1997 ALL MR (Cri) 1740 as follows:
7. I am afraid that I cannot accede to the submission canvassed by Mr. A.R. Shaikh because as observed by the Division Bench in para 5 in 1988 MLJ page 363 supra, an order pertaining to the custody could not be passed in a manner in which the very object of the Act namely protection and preservation of animals and not their slaughter would be defeated. Since the allegation in the F.I.R. was that the cattle belonged to respondent No. 2 and were being taken for slaughter, the impugned order granting respondent No. 2 their interim custody cannot be sustained and has to be quashed.
2) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 also relied upon the order passed by Honourable Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 283287/2002 (arising out of SLP (CRI) Nos. 2790, 2793,2795, 2797, 2800/1999) on 22nd February, 2002.
The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the direction of the Court directing release of the animals in favour of the owner. It is alleged that while those animals were transported for the purpose of being slaughtered, an FIR was registered for alleged violation of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the specific allegation in the FIR was that the animals were transported for being slaughtered, and the animals were tied very tightly to each other. The criminal case is still pending. On an appeal for getting the custody of the animals was filed, the impugned order has been passed. We are shocked as to how, such an order could be passed by the learned Judge of the High Court in view of the very allegations and in view of the charges, which the accused may face in the criminal trial. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct that these animals be kept in the Goshala and the State Government undertakes to take the entire responsibility of the preservation of those animals so long as the matter is under trial.
Accordingly learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 urged that interim custody of the animals in question be handed over to respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the aforesaid case for proper preservation, maintenance and medical assistance to the said animals.
CONSIDERATION:
15. I have perused the documents and papers annexed with the present petition, as well as perused the contents of the First Information Report and also perused order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkheda as well as order passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1 Dhule and also considered the observations made in the above referred Rulings cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for respondent No. 2 and gave anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned respective counsel for the parties. and I am inclined to accept the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner since as observed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkheda in the order dated 6.11.2009, the petitioner herein is having a valid licence to sell and purchase the animals and he purchased the said oxen from Khetiya, District Badwani, which he was carrying to his field at village Sindkheda and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkheda also verified original receipts which revealed that the petitioner herein is the rightful owner of the said oxen i.e. 36 animals as well as learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkheda also perused licence produced by the petitioner which revealed that petitioner herein has valid licence to sell and purchase the animals, and hence, there is no dispute that the petitioner is rightful owner of the animals in question. It also appears that the alleged charges levelled against the petitioner herein is the first offence and respondent No. 1 has nowhere pointed out that there are any criminal antecedents against the petitioner herein, and therefore, when the petitioner herein i.e. owner is claiming interim custody of the said animals, respondent No. 2 has no preferential right and the petitioner herein shall have a better claim for the interim custody of the said animals, during the pendency of the prosecution, but certainly by imposing certain conditions upon the petitioner. In this context, reliance can be very well placed on the observations reported in the case Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Anr., Appellants v. Chakram Moraji Nat and Ors., Respondents reported at AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2769 as well as Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Ors. reported at AIR 2010 Supreme Court 475 (cited supra), by Mrs. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
16. As regards the apprehension posed by the learned Counsel for respondents in respect of taking said animals to slaughtering house after their release in favour of the petitioner, in fact, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindkheda has already imposed necessary conditions upon the petitioner while granting interim custody in favour of the petitioner by way of order dated 6.11.2009, and in addition to that, certain other conditions also can be imposed upon the petitioner including the condition that petitioner shall not take said animals to the slaughtering house and shall not subject the said animals for slaughtering and shall not sale or change the nature of the said animals till the disposal of the case, while releasing the said animals in favour of the petitioner, and imposition of such condition upon the petitioner, shall meet the said apprehension posed by the learned Counsel for the respondents.
17. In the circumstances, the petitioner herein shall have better claim over the animals in question, in respect of interim custody and shall have preferential right over respondent No. 2, since the petitioner herein is rightful owner thereof, whereas respondent No. 2 is a Charitable Institution and has no preferential right over the owner of the animals i.e. petitioner herein and hence, the impugned order dated 14.12.2009, passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule is required to be quashed and set aside whereas the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkheda on 6.11.2009 is required to be restored, but by imposing additional conditions as mentioned below:
18. In the result, present petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause ''B'' thereof and impugned order dated 14.12.2009, passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No. 177/2009 stands quashed and set aside, whereas the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkheda in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 175/2009 stands restored, on the following additional conditions:
a) The petitioner herein shall furnish fresh Suprutnama bond in the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ (Rs. One lac Seventy five thousand only), specifying and undertaking the conditions mentioned in the order dated 6.11.2009 and also in the present order meticulously and shall observe the said conditions scrupulously.
b) The petitioner shall not subject the 36 oxen/bullocks in question for slaughtering purpose and shall not cause damage or injury to lives and limbs of the said animals in any manner what so ever till the disposal of the said case.
c) The petitioner herein shall not transfer, sale and / or change the nature of the said animals in any manner till the disposal of the case.
d) The petitioner herein shall provide the necessary Medical treatment / assistance, water and food to the said animals properly and shall maintain and preserve the said animals with care diligently.
19. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
