Bombay High Court Upholds Owners’ Rights: Gaushala Denied Custody of Seized Cattle in Illegal Transport Case
Pranav B Prem
In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court at its Aurangabad Bench dismissed two criminal writ petitions filed by Maltidevi Mewalalji Jaiswalji Gaushala. The petitions challenged the orders passed by lower courts granting custody of seized cattle and a truck to their respective owners in a case involving allegations of illegal transportation of cattle for slaughter.
Background of the Case
On August 28, 2023, Visarwadi Police in Nandurbar district intercepted a truck carrying 14 buffaloes, allegedly being transported illegally without proper permits. The police seized the cattle and the truck under provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The interim custody of the cattle was initially granted to the petitioner, Maltidevi Gaushala, a registered shelter.
Subsequently, the owners of the cattle and the truck filed applications under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for custody. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navapur, granted their requests, which were later upheld by the Sessions Court, Nandurbar.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Ajay T. Kanawade, argued that custody of the cattle should remain with the Gaushala to prevent further cruelty. They also expressed concerns that releasing the truck to its owner could facilitate its use for future illegal activities. The petitioner relied on a precedent set by the Supreme Court in Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala vs. State of Maharashtra, where a Gaushala was entrusted with interim custody of seized cattle to ensure their welfare.
Arguments by the Respondents
The respondents, represented by Advocate Vakil Afzal Husain M., contended that the custody granted by the lower courts was lawful. The cattle owner, Respondent No. 2, assured the court of their willingness to bear the maintenance costs for the seized animals. Similarly, the truck owner highlighted their entitlement to possession during the trial.
Court's Findings
Justice Y.G. Khobragade observed that the provisions of Section 457 of the CrPC allow for the delivery of seized property to its rightful owner if no illegality is established in such custody. The court also considered the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Welfare Laws, including Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2016.
The court found no grounds to deny custody to the rightful owners, especially since the respondents had demonstrated their legal ownership and willingness to comply with necessary conditions. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the orders of the lower courts did not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
Cause Title: Maltidevi Mewalalji Jaiswalji Gaushala v State of Maharashtra
Case No: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1813 OF 2023
Date: December-10-2024
Bench: Justice YG Khobragade
[Read/Download order]
