Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2023 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
wp1213.23--1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 953 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1213 OF 2023Madan Prakashrao ShindeVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and another... WITHCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1305 OF 2023Salim Rasul KhureshiVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and another... WITHCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1302 OF 2023Biban Khureshi Khaja KhureshiVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and another...Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Shaikh Wajeed AhmedAPP for Respondent No.1: Mrs. Pratibha J. Bharad Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shrimant Mundhe ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 10th MAY, 2024. PER COURT :- 1.These matters are regarding handing over of custody ofbullocks seized at the time when they were found illegally carried byvehicles. The petitioners have filed three different criminal M.A. No.314 of 2023, 315 of 2023 and 317 of 2023 under Section 457 ofCr.P.C. before the learned JMFC, Parbhani for the custody of theanimals. The said applications were rejected, the petitioners have
Legal Reasoning
wp1213.23--2- filed Criminal Revision Nos. 39 of 2023, 37 of 2023 and 38 of 2023before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani. The saidrevisions were also rejected.2.A Writ petition No. 1213 of 2023 is filed for quashing of thejudgments passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Parbhani in Criminal Revision No.39 of 2023 dated 17.6.2023 andthe order passed below Exh.1 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Parbhani in Cri. M.A. No.314 of 2023 dated 9.5.2023. The WritPetition No.1305 of 2023 is filed for quashing of the judgment andorder passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani inCriminal Revision No.37 of 2023 on 17.6.2023 and the order passedbelow Exh.1 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani in Cri.M.A. No. 315 of 2023 dated 9.5.2023. The Writ Petition No. 1302 of2023 is filed for quashing of the judgment and order passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal RevisionNo.38 of 2023 dated 17.6.2023 and the order passed below Exh.1 bythe Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani in Cri. M.A. No.317 of2023 dated 09.05.2023. 3.Brief facts of the case are as under:- A police Naik Ashutosh Sanjay Jadhav lodged three reportsthat animals i.e. total 11 bullocks were found in the three vehicles,which were being illegally carried away for slaughtering without RTOpermissions and without fitness certificates of veterinary doctors
Decision
wp1213.23--3- required as per rules. Therefore, three offences punishable underSection 11(1) (d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960alongwith Sections 47 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act wereregistered against the petitioners. 4.Learned advocate for the petitioners argued and pointed outthe averments in the petition that permission of judicial magistratewas not taken for investigation of non cognizable offences registeredunder Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act inthese three cases. Petitioners are owners of the animals andtherefore, the petitioners are entitled for its custody as they areowners of the animals. Respondent No.2 Goshala is not a registeredinstitution. The order of keeping custody of two animals given torespondent No. 2 in criminal M.A. No. 315 of 2023, 317 of 2023 and314 of 2023 be set aside and the custody of the two bullocks inCriminal M.A. No. 315 of 2023, 5 bullocks in criminal M.A. No. 317 of2023 and 4 bullocks in criminal M.A. No.314 of 2023 be given to thepetitioners. He prayed to allow all the Writ Petitions.5.The learned APP for respondent No. 1 and learned Advocatefor respondent No. 2 strongly opposed these applications andsubmitted that there were no such legal permissions of RTO as wellas certificates of fitness of those bullocks with the petitioners totransport the animals. The impugned orders and judgments are thuslegal and correct. No interference is warranted in. wp1213.23--4- 6.The learned trial court held that as per Section 8(3) of theMaharashtra Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the custody ofanimals shall be given to the Goshala which is working for animalswelfare and petitioners are liable to pay its maintenance charges. Asper the Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, theGovernment has framed Transport of Animal Rules of 1978 andRules 47 to 56 are mandatory that the permission is necessary to 11bullocks in one vehicle were being carried away by violating the Rule56(c) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. Thus, prayers of theapplicants for the custody of the animals were rejected. The revisionsfiled against it were rejected.7.Perused the impugned judgments and orders of the trial courtand revisional Court. The petitioners were not having the RTOpermission for carrying the animals in the vehicles alongwith thefitness certificates of Veterinary doctor in respect of the healthcondition of those animals. This is a clear cut violation of the Rules47 to 56 and Rule 56 (c) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 bythe petitioners. No doubt, there are receipts for purchase of animalsissued by the Gram Panchayat to show that the petitioners havepurchased those animals. The petitioners have not produced thefitness certificates of animals issued by the Veterinary doctoralongwith the certificates of RTO permitting petitioners to carry awaythe animals in the vehicle. The documents of registration of Goshala wp1213.23--5- are filed on record which show that it is a registered one. In the caseof Dhyan Foundation Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.,(Criminal Writ Petition No. 575 of 2023 decided on 31.01.2024), inwhich this Court in paragraph No.6 held as under :“6.It is a common ground that till the trial isconcluded, the temporary custody of the animalsremains with the Pinjjrapole Gaushala, Infirmary orSPCA, as the case may be. In case of convictionthose animals are to be forfeited to the saidOrganizations and in case of acquittal, it will behanded over to the owners of the animals. Theprovision is also made for making payment by theowner of the animals or owner of the vehicle, in whichthey were being transported, for treatment, care andmaintenance of those animals by the saidorganizations. Therefore, it is clear that the impugnedorder directing to hand over custody of 43 goats torespondent No. 2 pending the trial is against theprovisions of the Act.”8.From the allegations in the FIR, it appears that the animalswere illegally carried for slaughtering therefore, its custody cannot begiven to the petitioners. Considering the fact that the animals aresafe in the custody of Goshala of respondent No. 2 and they aremaintained there properly. Thus, there is no substance in thegrounds of objections raised in all these writ petitions. The learnedMagistrate rightly directed to hand over custody of animals to therespondent No. 2. The revision applications were rightly dismissed by wp1213.23--6- the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani. There is no scopefor interference in the impugned orders and judgments, as theseanimals were found being transported for slaughtering.9.At this stage, there is a limited issue to decide as to whethercustody of the seized animals can be given to the petitioners or not.Therefore, arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners that theoffences are not cognisable and the police should not have takencognizance of it and that crimes are wrongly registered against thesepetitioners is not acceptable. For that separate remedy and course ofaction is available to the petitioners. This issue cannot be decided inthese Writ Petitions. On this point bunch of precedential lawssubmitted on behalf of the petitioners are not relevant and therefore,not considered and relied upon.10.The Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed. Hence thefollowing order :ORDERThe writ petitions are therefore, dismissed. No costs. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/