Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 309 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Budhabhai Gabhabhai Vakatar

2025-03-24

PRANAV TRIVEDI

body2025
JUDGMENT : (PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.) The issue involved in both these applications is common, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both these applications is filed by the applicant - State challenging the order passed below Exhibit-5 dated 24.03.2017 by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar Camp at Botad in Criminal Revision Application No. 4 of 2017 and Criminal Revision Application No. 3 of 2017, whereby the applications filed by the accused for release of the mudammal were allowed. 3. The fact leading to filing of the applications is that First Information Report was registered being C.R. No. 324 of 2016 was registered before Botad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 11 (1) (d), 11 (1) (h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954. Pursuant to the registration of the First Information Report, charge sheet came to be filed and the case came to be committed before the learned Sessions Court. It is the case of the applicant that the accused were carrying 14 animals in the ‘Eicher Car bearing registration no. GJ-04-AT-2635 in a cruel manner, which came to be intercepted by the Police authorities. Thereafter FIR came to be lodged. Thereafter charge sheet came to be filed and criminal case came to be lodged. During the pendency of the criminal case before the learned Sessions Court, the respondent - original accused had filed an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of 14 animals before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after going through the documentary and oral evidence rejected the application vide order dated 21.07.2017 and 17.01.2017 respectively. 4. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 21.07.2017 and 17.01.2017, the respondent – original accused preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 4 of 2017 and Criminal Revision Application No. 3 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Court, whereby the learned Sessions Court allowed the applications and released the animals. 5. Dissatisfied by the orders passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 4 of 2017 and Criminal Revision Application No. 3 of 2017, the present revision applications have been preferred by the State - applicant. 6. Heard Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State – applicant and Mr. 5. Dissatisfied by the orders passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 4 of 2017 and Criminal Revision Application No. 3 of 2017, the present revision applications have been preferred by the State - applicant. 6. Heard Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State – applicant and Mr. S. S. Saiyad, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – original accused and perused the material on record. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Sessions Court has erred in allowing the applications for release of the animals as the said animals were carried in an unauthorized manner and they were not carrying the certificate of veterinary doctor. and therefore, the learned Sessions Court ought not to have allowed the applications for release of the mudammal. It is further contended that the learned Sessions Court has erred in observing that the accused has not produced any false documents for the permit and the same cannot exempt the accused from producing the permit. Hence, the observations made by the learned Sessions Court is required to be set aside. 8. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Saiyad, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - original accused has drawn attention of the Court to the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, wherein it has been observed that sufficient measures were taken for the transport of the cattle. For the said purpose, the accused had also obtained the certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the Ratanpara Gram Panchayat and also the certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Bhavnagar as per Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, more particularly as per Rules 123. It is further submitted that the respondents are not arraigned as accused in the First Information Report or the concerned criminal case. Thus, having paid the requisite fees and having taken requisite permission which is required for transportation of the animals, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is just and proper. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no dispute that requisite permission as required to be taken for transportation of the animals was taken by the respondent. 10. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no dispute that requisite permission as required to be taken for transportation of the animals was taken by the respondent. 10. In such similar circumstance, this Court in Special Criminal Case No. 8967 of 2020 dated 17.11.2021 even had passed an order for release of the animals, more particularly the observations made in paragraphs 5 to 13, which reads as under :- 5. The provisions of Sections 4 & 9 of The Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 2005 (for short, the “Act of 2005”) have also been invoked against the petitioner. Section 4 of the Act of 2005 relates to the power to control production, supply, distribution, etc. of any essential commodity or cattle. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that if the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing the supply or for securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of any essential commodity or cattle, then it may by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of or trade and commerce in such essential commodity or the maintenance of cattle. Clauses (f) and (g) of sub-section (2) thereof also provides for regulating by license, permit or otherwise, the movement, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use and keeping of cattle and also for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulate or prohibit any of the matters stated in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 2005. The Government may also order for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of or trade or commerce in any essential commodity or cattle to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records, relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto as may be specified in the order. The Government may also order for requiring owners as well as persons in charge of cattle to maintain and produce for inspection, such books, accounts and records relating to the number of cattle owned, controlled and maintained by them. The Government may also order for requiring owners as well as persons in charge of cattle to maintain and produce for inspection, such books, accounts and records relating to the number of cattle owned, controlled and maintained by them. Section 4 also authorizes the Government to make incidental and supplementary provisions in respect of other matters and for the seizure of articles, which the authority has reason to believe that contravention of the order has been committed or any vehicle, vessel or animal, which they have reason to believe has been, is being or is about to be used without any grant, licence or permit. The penalty for the contravention of Section 4 of the Act of 2005 is provided in Section 9, which lays down that in the case of contravention of any order made or deemed to be made under Section 4, then on conviction, the accused shall be punished, in the case of an order made with reference to clauses (g), (h) or (I) of sub-section (2) of Section 4, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and fine and in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine and if the Court is of the opinion that only a sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice, it may record reasons and may refrain from imposing a sentence of imprisonment. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act of 2005 further provides that any Court trying the contravention of an order may direct that any property in respect of which the Court is satisfied that the order has been contravened and any vehicle, vessel or animal which the Court is satisfied has been used with the knowledge of the person having the control thereof for carrying such property shall be forfeited to the Government. The proviso to the said sub-section provides that if the Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to direct forfeiture in respect of the whole or as the case may be any part of the property, it may, for reasons to be recorded, refrain from doing so. The proviso to the said sub-section provides that if the Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to direct forfeiture in respect of the whole or as the case may be any part of the property, it may, for reasons to be recorded, refrain from doing so. It is to be noted here that Sections 4 and 9 of the Act of 2005 has been invoked in the present case but the prosecution does not specify as to how the said provisions have been contravened by the petitioner so as to subject him to the penal provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 2005. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed submitted that the petitioner has relied on the Certificate issued by the Chairman, Drainage Committee, Surat Municipal Corporation dated 05.12.2020, which states that the petitioner is in the business of animal husbandry and for that purpose, the petitioner has to frequently take his vehicle outside the city. He states that the concerned milk Society has also certified that the petitioner is a Member of the milk Society, which fortifies the fact that the petitioner is into the business of purchase and sale of cattle and is also the owner of the cattle in question. 7. The provisions of Rule-125E of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 2015 (11th Amendment) (for short, “the Rules”) has also been invoked in this case. The said Rule regulates the transportation of livestock by road with effect from 01.01.2016 and the transporters of the consignor of livestock are mandated to follow the code of practice laid down in the respective specification regarding the transport of the livestock. In this case, the animals that were being transported are buffaloes. Under the Rules, the mandated distance that has been provided between two animals with permanent partitions in the body of the vehicles is 2 sq. metres. The provision also states that the vehicle should not carry any other goods. In support of the said provision, learned advocate also relied on the Certificate dated 05.12.2020 issued by the Chairman, Drainage Committee of Surat Municipal Corporation, which states that the vehicle was being exclusively used for the purpose of transporting cattle. metres. The provision also states that the vehicle should not carry any other goods. In support of the said provision, learned advocate also relied on the Certificate dated 05.12.2020 issued by the Chairman, Drainage Committee of Surat Municipal Corporation, which states that the vehicle was being exclusively used for the purpose of transporting cattle. As per the impugned complaint, 11 buffaloes and 5 buffalo calves were transported in a Truck and on inquiry from the petitioner, he had informed the police that he was transporting them from Surat to a nearby market. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed stated that the petitioner was transporting the cattle for sale in the nearby market. He further stated that the distance between the two places is negligible and thus, no negligence could be attributed to the petitioner. 8. The Court at the first instance has referred to all the provisions that have been made invoked against the petitioner as also the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision Application No.601 of 2013 in the case of “Shri Bhavnagar Panjrapole Thro Manager Brijesh Himatlal Shah V. State of Gujarat”. In that case, the animals were being transported in a hidden manner in a small truck for slaughter purpose in violation of the provisions of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978 as also the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the accused therein was not in a position to show any permit for transportation of animals from one place to another and the mandatory Form No.15 was also not produced on record. 9. In the case of Manager, Panjarapole, Deodar and another V. Chakaram Moraji Nat. and others, 1999 (1) GLR 587 , it was observed that though the Panjrapoles have no preferential rights over an animal but it cannot be ignored that while deciding such application, facts and circumstances of each case is to be looked into and decision is to be taken solely based upon the facts and circumstances of each case independently. 10. Article 48 of the Constitution of India obligates the State to endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. 10. Article 48 of the Constitution of India obligates the State to endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. Various provisions by way of Acts have also been made to fulfill the objects as drawn through the provisions of the Constitution. 11. The Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (for short, the “Act of 1954”) has come into force to provide for the preservation of animals suitable for milch, breeding or for agricultural purposes. The Act of 2005 provides for the control and regulation of the production, movement, supply and distribution of certain commodities essential to the life of community and for the control and regulation of trade and commerce therein and for the maintenance, licensing and movement of cattle and the licensing of dealers in such commodities and cattle and for certain other purposes. 12. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 has been enacted with the object of preventing the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. 13. The petitioner herein, being the owner of the cattle in question, was required to ensure that the cattle which were transported, were not subjected to cruelty and that sufficient measures were taken for their transport. However, at that same time, it is to be noted that the respondent-State has not produced any material on record to show that the petitioner has committed a similar offence in the past or is a habitual offender. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed stated that this is the first offence by the petitioner. Taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Acts / Rules and the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the cattle in question and they were not being transported for slaughter purpose, as has been suggested in the impugned complaint, it would be in the interest of the cattle that their interim custody is handed over to the petitioner.” 10.1. The ratio laid down by this Court would be squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the application preferred by the State would not survive. 11. In view of the above, both the applications being devoid of merits stand dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated.