High CourtsSingle Bench

Irfan vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 1 April 1997 · Citation: (1997) 21 ACR 451

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.P. Garg, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — Section 11
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 391 of 1997
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 481 words

T.P. Garg, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15.3.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Basti, refusing to release the bullocks, which are subject-matter in Case Crime No. 27 of 1997 u/s 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, P.S. Chawani, District Basti, whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for release of the bullocks was rejected.

2.

Heard Sri Ravindra Rai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. Both have agreed that this petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.

3.

It is undisputed that certain bullocks were purchased by the Petitioner from the cattle fair at Mankapur, District Gonda vide various receipts, photocopies of which have been annexed along with affidavit as Annexure 1. It is also undisputed that these animals were being transported in the trucks through Sultanpur Forwarding Agencies, Sultanpur Ltd. vide bilty, Annexure 1A to the affidavit. Vide this bilty there were 16 bullocks being transported. However, these animals were seized by the Police Station, Chawani, District Basti while the animals were being transported to Khalilabad Sultanpur for sale. A case was registered against the Petitioner.

4.

The case of the Petitioner is that if the animals are not given in the custody of the Petitioner, he will suffer irreparable loss and some of the animals may die in the custody of the police for want of proper care and feeding. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate was perhaps not satisfied with the illegible copies of the receipts produced and on account of which the impugned order was passed.

5.

Be that as it may, at this stage it cannot be said that the bullocks were being transported for the purpose of slaughter. The Petitioner has claimed ownership of those bullocks and has also shown receipts in proof of his having purchased the same in order to establish his entitlement to get interim custody as during the period they remain in the custody of the police, the animals cannot perhaps have that much care and feeding which they would otherwise receive from their owner. There is no other claimant also.

6.

Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as welfare of the livestocks, it is hereby directed that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Basti would give the bullocks in the interim custody of the Petitioner provided the Petitioner furnishes adequate security other than in cash or bank guarantee and deposits a reasonable amount towards expenses incurred so far by the police on their maintenance. This order is, however, subject to the Petitioner''s establishing his prima facie ownership and entitlement before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Basti.

7.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.