Read Time: 07 minutes
Court noted that there was overwhelming evidence to suggest that a huge quantity of cow meat was found in gowdown of Asifa Sultana and others but since the procedure was not followed correctly for collection of the sample, the FIR had to be quashed
The Supreme Court has upheld a Karnataka High Court's order quashing an FIR registered in a case related to illegal storage of huge quantity of cow meant in a godown.
The court has said so basis a technical error in procedure of law, and has noted that the sample collected by the Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department was completely illegal.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan confirmed the High Court's order which quashed the FIR lodged against Asifa Sultana and others, saying "we find no error in the view taken by the High Court".
"The crux of the matter is that the sample of the meat was admittedly collected by the Assistant Director, who had no authority in law to collect the sample. He did not collect the sample after notice to the first to third respondents. Thus, the act of collection of sample by the Assistant Director was completely illegal," the bench said.
"It is this sample which was sent for chemical analysis. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution is based on unauthorisedly and illegally collected sample of the meat.Therefore, the High Court was right when it interfered by quashing the First Information Report," the bench added.
Joshine Antony, the appellant who acted as Honorary Animal Welfare Officer complained Dr Omkar Patil, Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department about illegal storage of a large quantity of meat of cow in a godown of the first to third respondents.
The High Court, however, quashed the FIR lodged under Sections 420, 429 of the IPC and other provisions under the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964.
The appellant contended that this was a case where huge quantity of meat of cow was found in the custody of the first to third respondents. His counsel pointed out that even before the investigation could proceed, that the High Court has interjected. He submitted that there is overwhelming prima facie evidence on record to show that the meat found in the custody of the first to third respondents was a meat of cow and, therefore, prima facie, the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1964 Act were attracted.
He said the packets stored in the cold storage of the first to third respondents were deliberately labelled as “Super Fresh Frozen Boneless Buffalo Meat” and that is how Section 420 of the IPC was applied by the police. He further submitted that the sample collected from the cold storage of the first to third respondents was sent for DNA test, which revealed that the meat was of cow.
The counsel said Patil was duly authorised officer under Section 10 of the 1964 Act and he had authority to enter any premises and to inspect the said premises as he had a reason to believe that the offence under the 1964 Act has been committed. He submitted that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial.
The court, however, noted the sample was collected not by a police officer but by the fifth respondent, who was the Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department.
"Assuming that he was an authorized person, his powers were very limited under Section 10 of the 1964 Act," the bench said.
His power was confined to enter and inspect. Under the 1964 Act, he had no power to seize any sample of meat, the bench said.
The court also noted the police also entered the premises but did not collect any sample for sending it for analysis.
The bench, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
Please Login or Register
