- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Cattle Can't Be Handed Over To...
Cattle Can't Be Handed Over To 'Owners' Who Were Illegally Transporting Them : Supreme Court Gives Interim Custody To Gaushala
Awstika Das
16 Oct 2022 6:16 AM GMT
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court granted custody of seized cattle to a gaushala (cow shelter) engaged in animal protection and welfare instead of the purported owners who were illegally transporting the cattle. This custody dispute has a long and chequered procedural history that can be traced back to February 2019, when a truck was found to be transporting fifteen bullocks and...
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court granted custody of seized cattle to a gaushala (cow shelter) engaged in animal protection and welfare instead of the purported owners who were illegally transporting the cattle. This custody dispute has a long and chequered procedural history that can be traced back to February 2019, when a truck was found to be transporting fifteen bullocks and three buffaloes without the relevant permits and an FIR was lodged against the owners and the driver of the truck under the relevant provisions of, inter alia, the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995, Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act 1976, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, and the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. During trial, a Judicial Magistrate First Class allowed an application filed by the gaushala under the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act for interim custody of the cattle, but this order was overturned by the Sessions Judge who noted that the owners had a "preferential right" to get interim custody. The order of the Sessions Judge was questioned in a writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court. However, the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition. The matter finally travelled in appeal to the Supreme Court.
The intention of the legislature in incorporating the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act, the apex court observed, 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 relevant portion of the section provides for handing over of the seized cattle to the nearest animal welfare organisation willing to accept such custody. In light of the prima facie observation that the private respondents were in violation of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, the Court held that 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. Therefore, interim custody was granted to the appellant organisation who had indicated their readiness to maintain the seized cattle. The Court held –
"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 Judicial Magistrate First Class rightly concluded that the cattle would be safe in the custody of the appellant instead of the private respondents. In view of the above findings, the ultimate direction which was issued by the High Court was contrary to the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and would have to be set aside, while restoring the order of the Judicial Magistrate."
Noting that the trial was still pending, and two of the eighteen cattle had already died, the Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli also held that trial for offences under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 must be "concluded expeditiously" and the courts concerned would have to "take all necessary steps" to conclude the trial within a period of six months. This was to ensure that the cattle did not outlive their "commercial utility" while still in custody. The Court relied on its decision in Jagatguru Sant Tukaram Goshala v. The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 132/2022]. In the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate was directed to render a decision within three months since "a substantial period had already elapsed".
Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi appeared for the appellant along with Advocate Ayush Anand, while the private respondents were represented by Advocate Sachin Patil.
Case Title
Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala v. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) No. 412/2020]
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment
