The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set-a-side/ quash the proceedings dispatch'orders vide dis. NO. 655 of 2022 Dt. 6-8-2022 passed in Criminal M.P.No. 1856 of 2022 in Crime No. 206 of 2022 on the file of the court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongiri. l.A. NO:2 oF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings dispatch orders vide dis. NO.655 of 2022Dt.6-8-2022 passed in Criminal M.P.No. 1856 of 2022in Crime No.206 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir and pass. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. S. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the respondent no.2. The Court ma.de the following: ORDER ':.': THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.7251 ot 2022 ORDER: challenging the release order, dated 06.08.2022 pursuant to the order, dated 05.08.2022 passed in crl.M.P.No.1856 of 2022 in crime No.206 of 2022 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhongir, the petitioner-Gaushala-third party has filed this criminal Petition. By the impugned order, the case property i.e., six bullocks were ordered to be released in favour of respondent No.2-accused on certain conditions.

2. Heard Mr. G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counset for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutcir appearing for the respondent-state. lnspite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, despite the matter pertaining to the year 2022. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.07.2022, on receiving credible information, the de facto complainant proceeded to the Guduru Toll Plaza, Bibinagar Mandal, intercepted a DCM bearing No.TS- 12-UD-0667 and found responclent No.2-accusecl transporting the catle for slaughtering by tying them with ropes and without providing them proper fodder and water. Basing on the same, a case in crime No.206 of I i,, .lr ,l 2 2022 was registered against respondent No.2-accused for the offences punishable under Section 11 read with Section 38 of Prevention of Cruelty of Animal Act, 1960 and Rules 47 to 56 of Transport of Animal Rules, 1988.

4. After seizure, the cattle were given to the safe custody of the petitioner-Gaushala. While so, respondent No.2-accused claiming to be the owner has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1856 of 2022 seeking interim custody of the seized cattle and the learned Magistrate has ordered the Station House Officer of Bibinagar Police Station to release the same in favour of respondent No.2-accused by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-Gaushala approached this Court by filing this criminal petition

5. Submissions made bv learned counpel for the petitioner:

5.1. The learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order in complete disregard of Rule 56(c) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, Rule 125-E of the Central Motor Vehicle (11th Amendment) Rules, 2OO7 and Section 17 of the Telangana Prohibition of Cq* Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977. The learned Magistrate has erred in granting interim custody of the seized cattle to respondent No.2-accused pending trial, when charges of cruelty and slaughtering are levelled against him, by wrongly relying on the ownership documents of cattle. / / 1 t t I i :iI I J The 2nd respohdent-accused is none other than an agent or the owner engaged in the business of cow slaughtering and he has violated several provisions of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, including failure to produce veterinary fitness certificates (Form-H), absence of first aid kits in vehicles, no proper labelling on trucks, lack of sufficient space for each animal, inadequate food and water during transport, absence of anti- slipping material and transporting more than six animals per vehicle'

5.2. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of lndia v. A.Nagaraja and othersl , wherein, it is held that the animals have the right to live with dignity under Article 21 read with Article 51-A (g) of the Constitution of lndia, and hence, prayed to set aside and quash the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet, the same was taken cognizance, numbered as C.C.No.612 of 2022 and the same is pending.

7. When the present matter came up for admission on 16.08.2022, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court granted interim stay of operation of the impugned order, dated 06.08.2022. '1zota1 r scc saz 4

8. lt is apposite to refer to Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to o Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2016, notified vrde G.S.R.No.495(E), dated 23.05.2017, which reads as under

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 animal 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 injurious marking shall be prohibited; (b) the magistrate may direct the animal to be housed at an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala during the pendency of the litigation.

9. As seen from the record, it is evident that respondent No.2- accused was found transporting seized cattle in a DCM without any arrangement of sufficient fodder and water for them. The contention of ledrned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2-accused is engaged in the business of selling cattle to slaughtering houses, and that the learned Magistrate handed over the cattle to respondent No.2- accused without due verification of ownership, during the pendency of the litigation.

10. Having gone through the record, it is apparent that respondent No.2-accused has purchased seized cattle and was found transporting the same in a DCM without any arrangement of sufficient fodder and water for them. After seizure, seized cattle were handed over to the / / *at'? 5 custody of the petitioner-Gaushala. Till date the same were in the custody of the petitioner-Gaushala, as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are matters to be adjudicated upon during the course of trial '11. ln terms of Section 11(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, an owner shall be deemed to have committed an offence, if he has failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision with a view to prevention of the offence. Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, states that it is the duty of any person in charge of an animal to take reasonable measures to ensure the animal's well-being and prevent it from unnecessary pain or suffering. The learned counsel for the petitioner is disputing the ownership of respondent No.2-cattle. Assuming that respondent No.2-accused is the owner of the seized f ( cattle, their custody cannot be handed over to him when allegations of cruelty and illegal slaughtering are levelled against him. Only asserting ownership, a person cannot seek for interim custody of animals that have been transported in blatant violation of Rules and the Act.

12. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order, dated

06.08.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate granting interim custody of the seized cattle in favour of respondent No.2-accused is pre-mature, I \ 6 unsustainable, and contrary to the spirit and objectives of animal welfare 0' laws, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the retease order, dated 06.08.2022 pursuant to the order, dated. os.ol.2o22 passed in crl.M.P.No.1856 of 2022 in crime No.206 of 2022 by the Iearned Additional Junior Civi! Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhongir, is hereby set aside. Needless to say that the seized cattle shatl be in the custody of the petitioner-Gaushala, till the conclusion of the trial in C.C.No.612 of 2022, arising out of F.l.R.No.206 of 2022 of P.S. Bibinagar. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To; //TRUE COPY/ 6 1' The AdditionalJunior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class, 2- The station House officer, Bibinagar porice station,Rachakonda. 3. ONE CC tO SRI. G L NARASIMHA RAO AOVOCAi" ibPUCI 4- one cc to SRr. puBlrc pRosECUToR (TG) norf"rt" topucl 5. Two CD Copies Bhongir. SECTION OFFICER YJR a ,i .rl I HIGH COURT DATED:3110712025 ? a ! I t ORDER DIA (. .r (--) 1 6 JAN 2O2E 12 CRLP.No.7251 of 2022 * CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED