SHRI CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI GAUSHALA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 1129 · Decided: 30-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1129
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1129
1129
SHRI CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI GAUSHALA
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1719 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
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
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
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 custod

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.