Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Govansh Raksha Samiti Goshala and Guru Ganesh Mishri Gopalan Seva Sangh, filed a criminal writ petition challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, which dismissed their revision against a JMFC order granting interim custody of seized cattles to the owners. The FIR was lodged on 09.07.2022 under sections 5(qa), 11(1)(e), and 11(1)(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, alleging that the respondents had detained 50 cattles in cruel conditions for slaughter. The police raided the sheds and seized the animals. The owners filed applications for interim custody, which were allowed by the JMFC, while the petitioners' application for custody was rejected. The petitioners argued that the owners were habitual offenders and that the cattles should be kept in a goshala for their safety. The court, however, found no evidence of habitual cruelty or that the owners would subject the animals to further cruelty. The court held that the owners have a right to custody and that the JMFC's order was not perverse. The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim custody granted to the owners was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Animals - Locus Standi - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Sections 5(qa), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(h) - The petitioners, being Goshalas, sought custody of cattles seized in a cruelty case, but the court held that the owners are entitled to interim custody unless there is evidence of habitual cruelty or likelihood of further cruelty. The court found no such evidence and upheld the orders granting custody to the owners. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 397, 401 - The revisional court's interference is limited to cases of illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness. The Sessions Judge correctly dismissed the revision as the JMFC's order was not perverse. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners (Goshalas) have locus standi to seek custody of the seized cattles and whether the learned JMFC and Sessions Judge erred in granting interim custody to the owners instead of the Goshalas.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur dated 18.04.2023 in Criminal Revision Application No. 10 of 2022 is confirmed. The interim custody granted to the owners is upheld.
Law Points
- Interim custody of seized animals
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
- 1960
- Sections 5(qa)
- 11(1)(e)
- 11(1)(h)
- Right of owner to custody
- Goshala's locus standi
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (05) 9
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1588 of 2022
Mr. Siddhant S. Varma for petitioners, Mr. Y.G. Gujarati APP for State, Mr. Satej S. Jadhav for respondent Nos. 2 to 6
Govansh Raksha Samiti Goshala, Malegaon and Guru Ganesh Mishri Gopalan Seva Sangh
The State of Maharashtra and Shakil Sharif Pathan and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing revision against JMFC's order granting interim custody of seized cattles to the owners.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to set aside the orders granting interim custody to the owners and to direct that the cattles be kept in their custody.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed that the owners are habitual offenders and that the cattles would be subjected to cruelty if returned to them.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC allowed the owners' applications for interim custody and rejected the petitioners' application. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision.
Issues
Whether the petitioners have locus standi to seek custody of the seized cattles?
Whether the JMFC and Sessions Judge erred in granting interim custody to the owners?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the owners are habitual offenders and that the cattles should be kept in a goshala for their safety.
Respondents argued that the owners have a right to custody and there is no evidence of habitual cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi
Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the owners of seized animals are entitled to interim custody unless there is evidence of habitual cruelty or that the animals are likely to be subjected to further cruelty. The court found no such evidence and upheld the orders granting custody to the owners.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned JMFC by his order had allowed the applications of the owners i.e. Cri.M.A. Nos. 332, 336, 343, 350 and 357 of 2022 directing to give interim custody of the cows and other cattles to the owners on executing Supurtnama.
The court found no evidence of habitual cruelty or that the owners would subject the animals to further cruelty.
Procedural History
FIR No. 282/2022 was lodged on 09.07.2022. The owners filed applications for interim custody (Cri.M.A. Nos. 332, 336, 343, 350, 357 of 2022) which were allowed by JMFC, Vaijapur. The petitioners' application (Cri.M.A. No. 349 of 2022) was rejected. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application No. 10 of 2022 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, which was dismissed on 18.04.2023. The petitioners then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition No. 1588 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 04.05.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: 5(qa), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(h)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
