Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gorakshanarth Aadiwasi Sevabhavi Sanstha Hatta (Naik) Gopal Gaushala, a public charitable trust, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC challenging orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aundha, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar. The background is that on 23-07-2020, police seized 16 calves and 2 oxen in Crime No.245/2020 registered under Sections 11(1)(D)(E) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Sections 5(a)(b), 9, and 11 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Animal Act, and Section 83 punishable under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for illegal transportation for slaughter. The police handed over the cattle to the petitioner Gaushala for medical treatment and care. Respondent No.2, Sk. Abdul Shafi Abdul Madar Kureshi, claiming ownership, filed an application under Section 457 CrPC for custody, which was allowed by the Magistrate on 14-08-2020 without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, which was dismissed on 25-08-2020 on the ground that the Gaushala had no locus standi. The petitioner argued that it was a custodian of the cattle, had incurred expenses for their maintenance, and was directly affected by the release order. The court considered the submissions and held that the Gaushala, being the custodian, had locus standi to challenge the order. The court noted that the Magistrate had not considered the welfare of the animals or the expenses incurred by the petitioner. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner be heard and that the owner be directed to pay maintenance expenses as per the Animal Welfare Board circular dated 03-05-2008 fixing daily maintenance at Rs.200 per cattle.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Locus Standi - Section 457 CrPC - Custodian of Seized Property - A Gaushala entrusted with custody of seized cattle by police has locus standi to challenge an order releasing the cattle to the alleged owner, as it is directly affected by the order and has a duty to protect the animals. The High Court can exercise powers under Article 227 and Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 2-5) B) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Seizure and Custody - Sections 11(1)(D)(E) PCA Act - Maintenance Expenses - When cattle are seized in a cruelty case and handed over to a Gaushala for care, the Gaushala is entitled to claim maintenance expenses from the owner before release. The Magistrate must consider the welfare of the animals and the expenses incurred by the custodian. (Paras 4-5) C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Locus Standi - Section 397 CrPC - A person who is not a party to the original proceedings under Section 457 CrPC may still have locus standi to file a revision if they are directly affected by the order. The Sessions Court erred in dismissing the revision solely on the ground of lack of locus standi. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Gaushala, as custodian of seized cattle, has locus standi to challenge the order releasing the cattle to the alleged owner under Section 457 CrPC, and whether the impugned orders are sustainable.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 14-08-2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aundha in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.114/2020 and dated 25-08-2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar in Criminal Revision are set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration of the application under Section 457 CrPC, with direction to hear the petitioner Gaushala and to consider the welfare of the cattle and maintenance expenses as per the Animal Welfare Board circular.
Law Points
- Locus standi of custodian of seized property
- Section 457 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- Article 227 of Constitution
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
- Maharashtra Prevention of Animal Act
- Motor Vehicles Act
