Kiran Raj

The Madras High Court has dismissed three criminal revision petitions seeking the release of cattle seized during alleged illegal transportation. The petitions challenged prior orders by judicial magistrates declining interim custody of the animals, which were reportedly being transported in violation of animal welfare laws. The court upheld the state’s authority to seize the animals, citing evidence of inhumane transport conditions and potential violations under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The petitioners—Abbas Manthiri, Mariyappan, and Thiyagarajan—sought the release of cattle confiscated by police in separate instances of alleged illegal transportation. The cases stem from complaints filed by representatives of two animal welfare organizations: “Almighty Animal Care Trust” and “Gau Raksha Dal.” According to the complaints, the petitioners were involved in transporting cattle in tightly packed container lorries without proper ventilation, food, or water.

The police intercepted three container lorries—bearing registration numbers TN-60-AV-4227, TN-60-Q-3265, and TN-51-AG-7777—at different locations in Chengalpattu District. Upon inspection, officials found 22 bulls and 2 calves in one vehicle, 21 bulls in another, and 74 bullocks in the third. Authorities alleged that the cattle were being transported to Kerala for slaughter under conditions amounting to cruelty. The animals were subsequently seized and placed in the custody of private animal shelters—“Sri Gokulakrishna Kosala” and “Mona’s Heaven for Domestic Animals Trust.”

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the cattle were lawfully purchased in Andhra Pradesh for agricultural and breeding purposes. They asserted that transportation complied with regulatory requirements, including veterinary certifications and payment of market cess. The petitioners argued that their animals were taken unlawfully and that their continued detention was unjustified. They further claimed that the learned magistrates had erred in refusing interim custody without inspecting the cattle or verifying the legitimacy of their transport.

The respondents, including the police and the animal welfare organizations, strongly opposed the petitions. They contended that the transport conditions were cruel, as the animals were tightly packed, deprived of basic necessities, and some had been subjected to painful techniques—such as placing chili in their eyes—to keep them awake. They further asserted that the majority of the seized cattle were under ten years old, making them ineligible for slaughter under the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, presiding over the matter, examined the case materials, submissions, and relevant legal provisions. The court noted that the primary issue was whether the transport complied with statutory guidelines and whether the petitioners were entitled to interim custody of the seized animals pending trial.

The court observed that "the cattle were transported in tightly packed conditions, with no provision for food or water, in clear violation of statutory transport regulations." Additionally, it was noted that "the Veterinary Doctor’s report confirmed that several animals sustained injuries, and certain cruel methods were employed to keep them awake during transport."

The judgment further addressed the applicability of Rule 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, which states: "If the accused is convicted, or pleads guilty, the magistrate shall deprive him of the ownership of the animal and forfeit the seized animal to the infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, or Animal Gaushala already having custody for proper adoption or other disposition."

The court reasoned that since the trial was pending, returning the animals to the petitioners carried the risk of further mistreatment or potential slaughter. The court also relied on precedent, including Supreme Court rulings that upheld police authority to seize and relocate animals in cases of suspected cruelty.

The court rejected the petitioners’ assertion that the animals were being transported for breeding, noting that "with the exception of one, all the seized cattle were castrated, making breeding impossible." Further, it found that "the petitioners failed to present valid transport permits at the time of interception, raising concerns about the legitimacy of their claims."

Based on the findings, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petitions, upholding the judicial magistrates' decisions to deny interim custody. The court ruled that the seized animals would remain in the custody of the designated shelters until the conclusion of the trial. The directive reaffirmed the legal obligations surrounding cattle transport and reinforced the court’s commitment to preventing cruelty to animals.

The judgment also stated specific guidelines for the proper transport of cattle, including the necessity of adequate space, ventilation, access to food and water, and compliance with veterinary certification requirements.

Case Title: Abbas Manthiri & Ors. v. State Represented by Station Houe Officer & Anr.
Case Numbers: Crl.R.C.Nos.1421, 1461 & 1433 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nirmal Kumar

[Read/Download order]