AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 3728 of 2008 SHOAIB ABDUSSALAM SHAKALA & 2 v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Feb 2012
- Bench
- M R SHAH
Outcome
Dismissed
parties, present petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 s. 11(1)
- Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 ss. 5, 8, 9, 10
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 467, 468
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. It is required to be noted that the aforesaid report is a part of investigation which is required to be considered by the concerned investigating officer and considering the aforesaid report and other material, if the investigating officer is of the opinion that the…
Judgment
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SHOAIB ABDUSSALAM SHAKALA & 2 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MA KHARADI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. MR LB DABHI ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, UNSERVED-REFUSED (R) for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13/02/2012
Present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned First CR.MA/3728/2008 JUDGMENT Information Report being CR No.II -175 of 2007 registered with Panigate Police Station for the offences punishable under section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, section 5, 8, 9 and 10 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 and sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr.Kharadi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has heavily relied upon the report of the Scientific Officer of Directorate of Forensic Science, Unit Gandhinagar in support of his prayer to quash and set aside the impugned First Information Report by submitting that whatever has been found was not cow mutton but it the same was bones and therefore, no offence has been committed by the petitioners.
Operative part
It is required to be noted that the aforesaid report is a part of investigation which is required to be considered by the concerned investigating officer and considering the aforesaid report and other material, if the investigating officer is of the opinion that the petitioners have not committed the offences as alleged, appropriate report can be submitted by the concerned investigating officer and if the investigating officer, considering the material collected during the course of the investigation, if of the opinion that the petitioners have committed the offences as alleged, chargesheet can be filed. However, solely on the basis of the aforesaid report, which is required to be considered by the concerned investigating officer, impugned First Information Report is not required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The averments and allegations in the impugned First Information Report CR.MA/3728/2008 JUDGMENT discloses cognizable offences which are required to be considered by the concerned investigating officer during the course of investigation. Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits in favour of either of the parties, present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: parties, present petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 — s. 11(1); Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 — ss. 5, 8, 9, 10; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 467, 468.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 13 Feb 2012. The bench was M R SHAH.
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.