Arun Prasanna vs State and Others

S. Palanivelu, J.—The revision petitioner is member of Managing Committee of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals constituted

by the District Collector, Chennai vide Roc. No. C2/38263/2009, dated 14.11.2012 and is interested in the safety of animals in question. The

petitioner and the de facto complainant have lodged complaint on 22.12.2012 before the 1st respondent police. Pursuant to which 1st respondent

police registered a case in Cr. No. 1399 of 2012 u/s 11(1)D and H of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, and seized the cattle that were

being transported illegally by the 2nd respondent/accused by name Durgavara Prasad Tamrapu, who is the owner of the cattle. The 2nd

respondent filed an application before the Court below for interim custody of the cattle and after hearing the de facto complainant and accused, the

learned Judicial Magistrate has inclined to deliver interim custody of 15 cows along with their calves to the 2nd respondent on the following

conditions:

... The petitioner/owner of the property has to execute a bond for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh only) with one surety for a likesum.

Moreover, the petitioner shall take photograph of the above said cows with calves in front and side views and produce three sets of photographs

in the Court duly signed by the petitioner/owner of the property and police and Head Ministerial Officer of this Court. (One photograph will be

kept in the case bundle one photograph kept by the petitioner/owner of the property and Another will be kept in the CD file of concerned police).

The petitioner shall produce the milch animal (cows) as and when required by this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the provisions of PCA Act, the accused/owner is not entitled to take custody of

the animals, that under the Transport of Cattle Rules, every consignment of cattle should bear the name of consignor and the consignee, but in this

case the trucks did not carry the name of the consignor and consignee, that the cattle that were being illegally transported did not have necessary

certificate from a veterinarian about its fitness to undertake to travel and that the animals are under medical treatment and no prejudice will be

caused to the respondents if interim custody is granted to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to the Rule 56 of the Transport of Animal Rules, which stipulates

conditions as to how the cattle should be transported, which are as follows:

(a) Specially fitted goods vehicles with a special type of tail board on padding around the sides should be used;

(b) Ordinary goods vehicles shall be provided with anti-slipping material, such as coir matting or wooden board on the floor and the

superstructure, if low, should be raised;

(c) No goods vehicle shall carry more than six cattle;

(d) Each goods vehicle shall be provided with one attendant;

(e) While transporting the cattle, the goods vehicle shall not be loaded with any other merchandise;

(f) to prevent cattle being frightened or injured, they should preferably face the engine.

The learned Judicial Magistrate has granted interim custody to the accused/owner based on the provisions u/s 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., and the

procedures laid down in Sunderbhai Amabalal Desai v. State of Gujarat 2003 (1) CTC 175 which is not applicable to the case on hand involved

in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Sections 29(1) and (3) of the Act deal with the power of Court to deprive person convicted of

ownership of animal, which goes thus:

29.(1) If the owner of any animal is found guilty of the offence under this Act, the Court upon his conviction thereof, may, if it thinks fit in addition

any other punishment make an order that the animal with respect to which the offence was committed shall be forfeited to Government and may,

further, make such as to the disposal of the animal as it thinks fit under the circumstances.

(2)...

(3) without prejudice to the provision contained in sub-section (1), the Court may also order that a person convicted of an offence under this Act

shall, either permanently or during such period as is fixed by the order, be prohibited from having the custody of any animal of any kind

whatsoever, or as the Court thinks fit of any animal of any kind or species specified in the order.

As per the above Act, the accused/owner is not entitled to take custody of the animals.

The cattle were entrusted with M/s. Sri Ramanuja Ghoshala for maintenance temporarily. A member of Indian Institute of Animal Welfare wrote

a letter on 15.3.2013 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chenglepet, that they have received 13 cattle from Tmt. Jayashree for treatment and

maintenance, that inspite of good treatment, one cow died and presently 8 cows 1 buffalo was there and two cows are kept in Muththupandy farm

for treatment. The petitioner has produced the proceedings of the collector of Chennai dated 14.11.2012 in which Society for Prevention of

Cruelty of Animals was reconstituted by appointment of Members. In this proceedings the Managing committee consisting of five authorities and in

which interested non-official individuals 4 members. The name of the petitioner figures first in the list of interested non official individuals.

In the above said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is the competent person to take care of the welfare of the cattle and

the cattle may be given custody to the petitioner till the disposal of the case with the following conditions:

(a) The cattle have to be photographed in 3 angles front, back and sideways;

(b) The photographs with negatives shall form part of the case.

(c) The petitioner shall produce the cattle as and when required by the Court.

With the above conditions the revision case is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Chengalpattu, in Cr. M.P.

No. 106 of 2013 dated 20.2.2013. Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.