Case Note & Summary
The applicant, a businessman dealing in hide and skin of dead animals, challenged the FIR registered against him for alleged offences under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995 and the Indian Penal Code. On 25-11-2016, a police officer searched the applicant's godown and found 4200 pieces of hide and skin and 1500 tins of processed fat. The applicant was asked to produce papers, but the police registered Crime No. 2232/2016 under Sections 429 read with 34 IPC and Sections 9 and 11 of the Act, alleging illegal possession of animal products. The applicant contended that his business was lawful, supported by a sales tax certificate and a no-objection certificate from the Deputy Collector, and that the Act did not prohibit dealing in hide and skin of dead animals. The State opposed the application, maintaining the legality of the police action. The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 5A, 5B, 5C, 9, 9A, and 11, and found that they criminalize slaughter, transport, sale, and possession of flesh of cows, bulls, and bullocks, but not the business of hide and skin of dead animals. Relying on the principle enunciated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court held that when the FIR prima facie does not disclose any offence, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash it. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the FIR, allowing the application with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers to Quash FIR - FIR can be quashed if allegations do not constitute any offence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The court, relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, held that when the FIR does not prima facie disclose any offence, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR. Here, the FIR alleged possession of hide and skin of dead animals, which is not prohibited by the Act. Held: FIR quashed. (Paras 13-15) B) Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act - Scope of Prohibited Activities - Sections 5A, 5B, 5C, 9, 9A, 11 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995 - The court examined the relevant provisions and found that they prohibit slaughter, transport, sale, and possession of flesh of cows, bulls, and bullocks, but do not cover hide and skin of dead animals. The applicant's business of dealing in hide and skin is not prohibited. Held: No offence made out under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act. (Paras 11-12, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether possession of hide and skin of dead animals constitutes an offence under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995 and Indian Penal Code
Final Decision
Criminal application allowed; FIR/Crime No. 2232/2016 registered at Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur, quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Sections 9 and 11 of Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act
- 1995 do not prohibit business of hide and skin of dead animals
- FIR can be quashed under inherent powers if no prima facie offence disclosed
- as per State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.1 SCC 335)
