Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ujjawal Gorakshan Trust, a registered public trust dedicated to animal welfare, challenged an order dated 27/8/2015 passed by the trial court granting custody of 33 bullocks to respondent no.2 (Raju Chahande), the accused in a case under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Motor Vehicles Act. The bullocks were seized on 3/7/2015 when they were found being illegally transported in two trucks without valid permission. The trial court released the cattle to respondent no.2 on his executing a supratnama bond of Rs.5 lakhs, with conditions not to sell the animals and to produce them as directed. The petitioner's application for custody was rejected. The High Court, hearing the writ petition, noted that the trial court had not considered the welfare of the animals and that the petitioner trust, being dedicated to animal welfare, was better suited to ensure their care. The court set aside the impugned order and granted custody of the bullocks to the petitioner trust, subject to conditions including execution of a bond of Rs.5 lakhs, undertaking to produce the animals as required, and not to dispose of them without court permission. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Animals - Welfare of Animals - Sections 451, 457 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - The trial court granted custody of 33 bullocks to the accused on supratnama bond, rejecting the application of the petitioner trust. The High Court held that the welfare of animals is paramount and the trust, being dedicated to animal welfare, is better suited to ensure their care and preservation. The impugned order was set aside and custody was granted to the petitioner trust subject to conditions. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting custody of seized bullocks to the accused (respondent no.2) instead of the petitioner animal welfare trust, pending trial.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 27/8/2015, and granted custody of the 33 bullocks to the petitioner trust subject to conditions: executing a bond of Rs.5 lakhs, undertaking to produce the animals as and when required, not to dispose of them without court permission, and to ensure their welfare. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
Law Points
- Interim custody of seized animals
- welfare of animals paramount
- Section 11(3) and 11(1)(d) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
- 1960
- Section 451 CrPC
- Section 457 CrPC
- ownership not sole criterion
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 217
Criminal Writ Petition No.703 of 2015
Shri R.M. Daga for petitioner, Shri S. Sirpurkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1
State of Maharashtra and Raju s/o Pandhari Chahande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of the trial court granting custody of seized bullocks to the accused.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner trust sought custody of the 33 bullocks seized in connection with Crime No.3090/2015.
Filing Reason
The trial court granted custody of the bullocks to respondent no.2 (accused) and rejected the petitioner's application for custody.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed order dated 27/8/2015 granting custody of 33 bullocks to respondent no.2 on his executing a supratnama bond of Rs.5 lakhs and imposing conditions.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in granting custody of seized bullocks to the accused instead of the animal welfare trust.
What factors should be considered for interim custody of animals pending trial under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that being a trust dedicated to animal welfare, it is better suited to take care of the bullocks and ensure their safety.
Respondent no.2 claimed ownership of the cattle and sought custody.
Ratio Decidendi
In matters of interim custody of animals seized under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the welfare of the animals is paramount. Ownership is not the sole criterion; the court must consider which party is better suited to ensure the animals' care and preservation pending trial.
Judgment Excerpts
Challenge in this petition is to order dated 27/8/2015 passed by learned trial Court granting custody of 33 bullocks to respondent no.2 on his executing a supratnama bond of Rs.5 lakhs and by imposing conditions not to sell animals and to produce the same as and when directed during pendency of trial.
Petitioner is a registered public trust having Public Trust No.F1425 (Nagpur), which is dedicated for the welfare of animals and engaged in taking care, preservation and protection of animals.
In the circumstances, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
Procedural History
On 3/7/2015, cattle were seized and offences registered. Respondent no.2 applied for custody; trial court granted custody to him on 27/8/2015. Petitioner's application for custody was rejected. Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.703 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and decided on 8/9/2017.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: Section 11(3), Section 11(1)(d)
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 66, Section 192, Section 130(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 451, Section 457
