Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gulam Husain Khan Mustafa Khan, was a businessman dealing in sale and purchase of animals. The Sindkheda Police Station registered Crime No.18/2009 against him for offences under Sections 11(d)(e)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 5(1) 11 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, and seized 36 bullocks from his custody. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.175/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkheda, seeking release of the animals under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate allowed the application on 6.11.2009, directing release of the bullocks on execution of a Suprutnama bond of Rs.1,75,000 with conditions. The petitioner complied with the conditions. However, the respondent No.2, Asaramji Goraksha Kendra, filed a revision before the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, who reversed the Magistrate's order on 14.12.2009. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Sessions Judge's order. The High Court heard the parties and held that the Magistrate's order was just and proper, and the Sessions Judge had erred in reversing it. The court noted that the animals were in the custody of respondent No.2 and the petitioner had already complied with the conditions. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Sessions Judge's order, and restored the Magistrate's order dated 6.11.2009, directing release of the bullocks to the petitioner on the same conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Property - Section 457 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Release of Animals - The Magistrate ordered release of 36 bullocks seized under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act on a Suprutnama bond of Rs.1,75,000. The Sessions Judge reversed the order. The High Court held that the Magistrate's order was proper and the Sessions Judge erred in reversing it without considering the welfare of the animals and the petitioner's right to interim custody. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Seizure and Custody of Animals - Sections 11(d)(e)(f) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - The court noted that the animals were in the custody of the respondent No.2 (Gaushala) and the petitioner had complied with the conditions imposed by the Magistrate. The High Court restored the Magistrate's order, directing release of the bullocks to the petitioner on the same conditions. (Paras 4-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge reversing the Magistrate's order for release of seized bullocks was sustainable, and whether the petitioner was entitled to interim custody of the animals under Section 457 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge dated 14.12.2009, and restored the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 6.11.2009 directing release of the 36 bullocks to the petitioner on execution of a Suprutnama bond of Rs.1,75,000 with the same conditions.
Law Points
- Interim custody of seized animals
- Section 457 CrPC
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
- 1960
- Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act
- 1976
- Suprutnama bond
- Release of property pending trial
