Cattle: Custody of property pending trial – A truck transporting 18 heads of cattle was intercepted – Driver of the truck was unable to provide satisfactory explanation about the relevant permits – Cattle were seized and FIR was registered for offences punishable u/ss. 5A, 6 of the Maharashtra Act, 11(1)(d) of PCA Act and other allied provisions – Respondents filed an application u/ss. 451 and 457 Cr.PC seeking interim custody of the cattle on ground that they were the owners of the cattle – Magistrate rejected the application – At the same time, appellants (Gaushala) filed an application for interim custody u/s. 8(b) of PCA Act read with rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 – Magistrate allowed the application by appellant and granted them custody of cattle – Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the private respondents and held that being the owners, they were entitled to the custody of the seized animals, subject to the execution of an indemnity bond for preservation of cattle – High Court upheld the order of the Sessions Judge by noting that there was no material to indicate that the cattle were physically harmed or that they were placed in danger or were being starved – Held : The proviso to s.8(3) of the Maharashtra Act provides for handing over of the seized cow, bull, or bullock to the nearest gosadan, goshala, pinjrapole, hinsa nivaran sangh or such other animal welfare organization willing to accept such custody – Since the private respondents were prima facie carrying the cattle in cruel conditions without a valid permit, and appellant has shown its willingness to accept the interim custody of the cattle, Magistrate rightly concluded that the cattle would be safe in the custody of the appellant instead of the private respondents – Trial for offences under the Maharashtra Act must take place expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months to ensure that the animals do not continue to remain in custody for an indefinite period – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 451 and 457 – Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 – ss. 8, 6, 5A, 5B, 5C and 5D – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – ss. 11, 35 and 38 – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 – rr.3, 4 and 5 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.117 – Transport of Animal Rules, 1978.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act was inserted by the Amending Act of 1995. The proviso stipulates that pending trial, the seized cow, bull or bullock shall be handed over to the nearest gosadan, goshala, pinjrapole, hinsa nivaran sangh or such other animal welfare organizations willing to accept such custody and the accused would be liable to pay for their maintenance for the period when they remain in custody. The appellants have invoked the proviso to Section 8(3) for claiming custody of the cattle. The intention of the legislature in incorporating the proviso to Section 8(3) was to give effect to the object of the Maharashtra Act to preserve and protect cows, bulls, and bullocks useful for milch, breeding, draught, or agricultural purposes. The proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act provides for handing over of the seized cow, bull, or bullock to the nearest gosadan, goshala, pinjrapole, hinsa nivaran sangh or such other animal welfare organization willing to accept such custody. In the present case, the appellant was willing and ready to accept custody of the seized cattle. In light of the prima facie observation that the private respondents were in violation of the Transport of Animal Rules 1978, it was incumbent upon the High Court to ensure that the seized cattle would be properly preserved and maintained until the conclusion of the trial proceedings. [Paras
14 and 20][1136-D-E; 1138-H; 1139-A-B]
2. The appellant has shown its willingness to accept the interim custody of the cattle. In view of the fact that private respondents were prima facie carrying the cattle in cruel conditions without a valid permit, the JMFC rightly concluded that the cattle would be safe in the custody of the appellant instead of the private respondents. [Para 21][1139-A-B]
3. Since the seizure of the cattle in February 2019, two of the cattle have died, leaving sixteen cattle in the balance, with the appellant. In such matters, it is necessary that the trial for offences punishable under the Maharashtra Act must take place expeditiously and that it should be concluded preferably within a period of six months. This would ensure that the animals do not continue to remain in custody under the provisions of the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act for an indefinite period. [Para 22][1139-E-F]
Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Another v. Chakram Moraji Nat and Others (1998) 6 SCC 520 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 198; Jagatguru Sant Tukaram Goshala v. The State of Maharashtra and Another [2005] 3 SCR
630 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.