The Supreme Court has observed that a mere absence of transport documents cannot give rise to a presumption that the cattle were being transported for slaughter.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the conviction of a man under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (“Act”), accused of transporting 32 bullocks for slaughter, observing that the transportation of the cattle without any documents did not give rise to a presumption that the cattle were being transported for slaughter purposes alone.

“The mere fact that the transport was not accompanied by any documents cannot lead to a presumption that the transport was for slaughter.”, the Court observed.

The appellant was one of six accused convicted under the Act. The allegation was of transport of cattle in violation of Section 6, for which they were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 10 of the Act.

According to the prosecution, 32 bullocks were being carried in a truck from Keduwa towards Odisha when it was detained by PW3, a Head Constable, who had received information of such transport. The cattle were seized, and the driver and cleaner were arrested. A Bolero car, which was moving in front of the truck, was also detained on the allegation that it was escorting the truck. Four persons travelling in the car were also arrested, one of whom was the appellant.

The Trial Court convicted the accused. The First Appellate Court and the Revisional Court affirmed the conviction. The High Court, in the impugned order, restricted the sentence to that already served. The appellant approached the Supreme Court specifically challenging the conviction.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant, after examining Section 6 read with Section 11 of the Act. The Court said that a mere carriage of cattle in the absence of documents in transit would not lead to a presumption that the transportation was done for slaughtering purposes.

The Court held that the reverse burden under Section 11 would fall on the accused only when the seizing authority has knowledge that the transportation was undertaken for the purpose of slaughter. Since the constable who seized the cattle failed to prove that the cattle were being transported for slaughter, the Court held that the reverse burden of proof would not apply to the accused. Consequently, the absence of any documents showing the purpose for which the cattle were being transported, or of documents with the truck driver while transporting the cattle, could not be treated as adverse to the accused.

“Section 6 specifically indicates the offence of transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter or knowledge that such cattle are likely to be slaughtered. But for a mere presumption of such intention, by the Head Constable, PW3, there is nothing on record to show that the cattle were carried for slaughter. The reverse presumption provided by Section 11 would apply only if the essential ingredients for alleging the offence are proved before the Trial Court. In which event, the accused has the onus to prove that the transport for slaughter or the slaughter itself was not in violation of the provisions of the Act.”, the Court said.

The Court also gave credence to the testimonies of the Veterinary Doctor and the Gaushala President, who have categorically stated before the Court that the cattle seized were fit and good for use in agriculture, like for ploughing, having nothing.

As a result, the appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Shantanu Kumar, AOR Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai, Adv. Mr. Kumar Ajit Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Yashvardhan Shah, Adv. Mr. Kshitiz Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR