Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 578 (AP)

Mohd. Moinuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2010-07-07

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

body2010
Judgment : 1 This revision is sought to be filed by the second accused (A2) against order dated 04.03.2010 passed by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar, by which the lower Court dismissed the petition filed by him under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C., refusing to give custody of the seized animals to him. 2 The petitioner/A2 and another (A1) are accused of offences punishable under Sections 5,6 and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cows Slaughter and Animal Prevention Act, 1977 and Section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It is alleged that A1 and A2 used to purchase buffalos and transport the same to Chengicherla Slaughter house, where they slaughter the buffalos for meat and that A2 purchased 75 buffalo calves at Hussnabad Shandy of Karimnagar District and that on 19.02.2010, A2, who is owner of DCM van bearing No. AP 29 U 9654 was transporting the purchased buffalo calves to chengicherla slaughterhouse for slaughtering without any certificate from competent authorities and that after purchasing 75 buffalo calves, A1 loaded them in DCM van of A2, being driven by A1. On the way at NFC Nagar, Punjabi Dhaba, when the DCM van was stopped, 17 buffalo calves out of 75 buffalo calves were found in dead condition. After seizure of the buffalo calves, dead calves were buried and live calves were handed over to ‘Goshala’ of Dathatreya Ashramam, Maheshwaram, for taking care of those live buffalo calves. 3 It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner/A2 was charged with a minor offence and that the seized animals are not liable for confiscation even if the accused are going to be convicted. It is not correct. 3 It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner/A2 was charged with a minor offence and that the seized animals are not liable for confiscation even if the accused are going to be convicted. It is not correct. Section 29 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, (in short, the Act) deprives a person who is convicted of ownership of the seized animals to the following effect: “(1) If the owner of any animal is found guilty of any offence under this Act, the court, upon his conviction thereof, may, if it thinks fit, in addition to 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 order as to the disposal of the animal as it thinks fit under the circumstances.” 4 As per Sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Act, no order of forfeiture of animals under Sub-Section (1) of Section 29 of the Act is liable to be made unless “it is shown by evidence as to a previous conviction under this Act or as to the Character of the owner or otherwise as to the treatment of the animal that the animal, if left with the owner, is likely to be exposed to further cruelty”. 5 The fact that while transporting 75 buffalo calves, 17 of them died during transport prima facie indicate that the accused are guilty of cruelty towards the animals, which are seized in this case. Therefore, in case the accused are going to be convicted, then there is prima facie possibility of forfeiting the seized animals to the Government. 6 Further, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mustakeem and others (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Crl. A. Nos. 283 - 287 of 2002, dated 22.02.2002), the Supreme Court dealt with the subject and passed the following order: “Leave granted. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the direction of the Court directing release of the animals in favour of the owner. Mustakeem and others (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Crl. A. Nos. 283 - 287 of 2002, dated 22.02.2002), the Supreme Court dealt with the subject and passed the following order: “Leave granted. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the direction of the Court directing release of the animals in favour of the owner. It is alleged that while those animals were transported for the purpose of being slaughtered, an FIR was registered for alleged violation of the Provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the specific allegation in the FIR was that the animals were transported for being slaughtered, and the animals were tied very tightly to each other. The Criminal case is still pending. On an appeal for getting the custody of the animals was filed. The impugned order has been passed. 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. We therefore set aside the impugned order and direct that these animals be kept in the Goshala and the State Government undertakes to take the entire responsibility of the Preservation of those animals so long as the matter is under trial. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.” 7 Thus, viewed from any angle, the petitioner/A2 is not entitled for interim custody of the seized animals by handing over the same to him from ‘Goshala’ of Dathatreya Ashramam, Maheshwaram. The impugned order passed by the lower court suffers from no infirmity. 8 Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.