THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 397, 401
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 s. 11(1)(A)
- Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 s. 7
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
27.06.2022 ORDER Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned Counsel representing the petitioners as well as P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. This is an application under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the said Code whereby the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 128/2022 corresponding to GR Case No. 952/2022 is under challenge. Police had a secret information that someone is possessing 30/40 nos. of stolen cattle and those cattle would be transported by a boat in the river Brahmaputra. When Police reached the place, they recovered 19 nos. of cattle from the possession of Abdul Kadir and Rahmat Ali. It was found that the legs and the heads of the cows were very tightly tied with ropes so that they can be easily loaded into a boat. Police suspected that the cows were meant to be slaughter for the beef market.
The petitioner Mahibur Rahman filed an application before the Magistrate seeking custody four of those seized cows. Similarly, the petitioner Md. Azahar Ali @ Azaharul Islam filed another application seeking custody of four nos. of seized cows. Similarly, the petitioner Md. Saifuddin filed an application before the Magistrate seeking nine nos. of seized cows. The petitioner Abdul Kadir prayed for two nos. of seized cows. Apart from that, an organization called Dhyan Foundation filed an application Page No.# 3/3 before the Magistrate seeking custody of all nineteen cows. Except Dhyan Foundation, the other petitioners filed the petitions supported by receipts showing that they had purchased the cows. Finally, the Magistrate rejected the prayer for custody. The Magistrate allowed Trinayan Gausala to keep the cows in their possession. The court of the Magistrate held that the cruelty was meted out to the cows.
Operative part
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides. The case is registered under Section 11 (1)(A) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Here, it is immaterial whether the petitioners are owners of the seized cattle. What is material is that whether cruelty was meted out to the animals. In the Police Report, available with the record, it appears that the heads and legs of the cows were tied with ropes so that they can be easily loaded in a boat floating in the water of the river Brahmaputra. Moreover, Section 7 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 prohibits transportation of cattle without a valid permit. This court is of the opinion that cruelty were meted out to the cows and they were intended to be illegally transported. The court below has rightly passed the order. This court finds no merit in the present petition. The impugned order does not require any interference of this court. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 397, 401; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — s. 11(1)(A); Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 — s. 7.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.