Shakir Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Saran, J.—The applicant is the owner of 16 bullocks, the release of which is being sought in this petition.

The facts in brief relevant for the adjudication of this case are that some bullocks were being transported by truck Nos. H.R. 55-2324 and U. P. 12-3276. 16 bullocks of the Petitioner which were being carried in truck No. H.R. 55-2324 were seized by the police. As per the first information report, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit, on 19.5.2003, on receiving information that two trucks were carrying bullocks to the West Bengal for the purposes of being slaughtered, the police tried to stop the trucks, but the truck drivers, instead of stopping, raced away and even tried to run over the police jeep. However, the police personnel managed to avoid the accident and thereafter chased the racing trucks. Both the aforesaid trucks while racing away, dashed against the railway-crossing gate. One truck No. U. P. 12-3276 got dis-balanced and fell in a ''khadda'' (pit) with all the four wheels up in the air. The 16 bullocks being carried in the said truck died on the spot. The other truck No. HR 55-2324 stopped because of being damaged as a consequence of the accident with the railway crossing gate, and the 16 bullocks being carried in the said truck were seized by the police. A Case Crime Nos. 417/418/419 of 2003 was thus registered against the applicant and others u/s 307, I.P.C. and Section 3/5A/8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The applicant applied for release of the surviving 16 bullocks which has been refused by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 22.5.2003, on the ground that the said bullocks were being taken for the purposes of slaughter and thus, the release of the same would not be proper. This petition has been filed challenging the said order of the learned Magistrate.

Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant, has submitted that there is no evidence to show that the cattle were being carried for slaughter and in the absence of the same, no case can be said to be made out under the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions of this Court where, according to the Petitioner in similar circumstances, the matter had been remanded back to the learned Magistrate for re-considering the case and in certain cases directions had also been issued to the learned Magistrate for release of the cattle on furnishing security by the owner.

Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the State of U. P. as well as U. P. Gauseva Ayog, has submitted that the bullocks should not be released as the criminal trial is still going on. He has placed reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. v. Mustakeem and others 2002 (2) JIC 911 and Devi Prasad Misra v. State of U.P., Crl.A. No. 68-78 of 1991. He has also submitted that along with the offence under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, the Petitioner was also guilty of the offences under the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960, as the bullocks were tied very tightly and also there were more bullocks in one truck than permissible under the Rules.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in my view the impugned order of the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Undisputedly, the criminal trial, of which the 16 bullocks in question are the subject-matter, is still pending. Normally there should not be any question of release of the cattle in question unless any extraordinary circumstance exists, which I do not find in the present case. In State of U.P. v. Mustakeem (supra), where in a similar situation the High Court had directed release of the cattle in favour of the owner, the Apex Court disapproved the same with the following observations:

We are shocked as to how such an order could be passed by the learned Judge of the High Court in view of the very allegations and in view of the charges which the accused may face in the criminal trial.

In the said case also, the charge was that the animals were being transported for the purposes of being slaughtered. While setting aside the order of the High Court, the Apex Court directed that the cattle will be kept in a ''gaushala'' and the State Government shall take the entire responsibility for the preservation of those animals so long as the matter was under trial.

In the other case of Shri Devi Prasad Misra also the Apex Court directed that "the custody of the cattle in question should remain with the organization known as godham" which should look after and protect the cattle pending disposal of the matter in the criminal court.

In none of the cases of this Court, as have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant, where directions for release of the cattle have been passed, the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court have been considered. The law laid down by the Apex Court binds this Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any extraordinary circumstance in the present case for which reason the cattle may be released in favour of the applicant.

Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State as well as Gau Sewa Ayog, has given an undertaking on behalf of his clients, that proper care shall be taken of the cattle which have been taken in custody, and which are to remain in custody till the pendency of the criminal trial. However, it is directed that the criminal trial pending against the applicant shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

Subject to the aforesaid direction, this petition is dismissed without there being any order as to cost.