LexBHARAT AMRATLAL KOTHARI AND ANOTHER versus DOSUKHAN SAMADKHAN SINDHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 662 A BHARAT AMRATLAL KOTHARI ·AND ANOTHER v. 4 .. DOSUKHAN SAMADKHAN SINDHI AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 2020 of 2009) B NOVEMBER 04, 2009 ":. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND ·J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ..... c s.482 - Quashing of complaint - Perusal .of complaint indicated that 2000 goats and sheep were transported in a cramped manner, denying them even food and water in the process - High Court held that the offences as alleged in the FIR were not made out and also recorded another finding that "':' D excessive number of animals were carried in the vehicles due to which they were subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering - These findings were contradictory to each other - Quashing of the complaint in part was wrongly ordered after convicting -i .... the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for the offence punishable under E s.11(1)(d) of the 1960 Act - Penal Code, 1860 - s.279 - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - s.11(1)(d) - Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 - ss. 5, 6 and 8. s.482 - Quashing of FIR at the instance of third party - Held: Not permissible - Prayer for quashing FIR can be made , F only by accused named in the FIR. Relief: Relief not prayed for - Held: cannot be granted - On G facts, respondent no. 1 to 6 did not pray before High Court for award of compensation from appellant no. 1 - Direction by High Court to. appellant no. 1 to pay Rs. 75000 to each of respondent not justified. )!' , Constitution of India, 1950: H 662 BHARAT AMRATLAL KOTHARI AND ANR. v. DOSUKHAN 663 SAMADKHAN SINDHI AND ORS. Article 226 - Owner of goats and sheep filed writ petition A -- • for custody of seized livestock - They were not alleged to have committed any offence - Their conviction by High Court - · Propriety of - Held: They cannot be convicted for the alleged ;. offence either at trial or by High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. B Article 226 - Interim order - In a writ petition seeking custody of seized livestock - High Court by interim order directed State Government to take appropriate departmental action for illegal or unauthorised action on the part of police c officer - In the order of Magistrate no officer was named - Propriety of direction of High Court - Held: . Whether action on part of police officers was illegal or not can be effectively .... gone into only at the stage of final disposal of trial and not at interim stage when court is hearing application for interim D custody of livestock - Direction to State government uncalled .. for. )>.. Article 226 - Writ petition by respondents, livestock owners for custody of their seized livestock - Held: Respondents-owners by vocation trade in goats and sheep E - Trade in which they are engaged not prohibited by any law - They are entitled to interim custody of goats and sheep subject to certain conditions. t Appellant no. 1 was an Animal Right Activist. He was F also Secretary of Rajpur-Deesa Panjarapole, which was a public trust involved in preservation of old, infirm and stray cattle. On June 16, 2008, he received message that certain trucks were carrying goats and animals to be taken to slaughter house. One of the trucks overturned G and as a result some animals died. Other trucks were - ., intercepted and in each truck, goats and sheep were found to be conveyed in congested manner. Appellant no.1 filed complaint for commission of offences punishable under Section 279 IPC, Section 11 (1 )(d) of H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954. ~ '"' One of the accused persons lodged FIR on June 17 2008 alleging that appellant no.1 and his associates 8 illegally stopped the trucks and looted the trucks with the help of local police. The police did not act on the said FIR. Therefore, complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to make a report after ._ conducting investigation into the said complaint. Before C the Magistrate, respondent no.1 to 6 filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P .C. for custody of cattle. The Magistrate rejected the said application and directed the Investigating Officer to take possession of all goats and sheep from Rajpur-Deesa Panjarapole and to hand D over the sam
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.