Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent development, the High Court of Orissa has issued a directive for the re-evaluation of a case involving the alleged illegal transportation of cattle and cruelty against the animals.

Justice Sibo Shankar Mishra, presiding over the case, reversed the trial court's decision dated November 01,2023, and remanded the matter back to the same Court to decide the revision petition afresh. This decision was based on the discovery of various documents subsequent to the passing of the impugned order.

The petitioner, Dhyan Foundation, alleged that they had rescued cattle being transported illegally and with the intent to slaughter them by the respondents, specifically identified as opposite party no.3 by the court. It was further contended that the opposite party had resorted to unfair and illegal means to establish ownership over the cattle by forging documents.

According to the records,"opposite party no.3," was also alleged to have been transporting cattle without proper care and in violation of Section-11(1)(d)(e)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960. The cattle, found tied and neglected in the vehicle without access to food and water, prompted legal action.

The local police had handed over the cattle to the present petitioner for immediate care, protection, and maintenance due to their extremely weak and miserable condition. However, no health inspection, identification, and marking of such animals were conducted as per Rule 3(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rule, 2017.

Meanwhile, opposite party No.3 filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,Baripada, under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the release of the cattle in his favour, claiming himself to be the owner. However, the plea was rejected by the Magistrate through an order dated 16th September 2023.

Subsequently, aggrieved and dissatisfied, opposite party No.3 preferred a Criminal Revision plea before the District and Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada. The revisional court allowed the petition of opposite party No.3 through an order dated 1st November 2023, stating that there is “no absolute ban for the accused owner in taking custody of animals during the pendency of litigation.” This was challenged before the High Court.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the petitioners, argued that documents obtained by the petitioner showed that the documents presented by opposite party No.3 to claim ownership of the cattle were forged. This invalidated the grounds on which the Revision Petition was allowed. A letter from the District Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Guntur, highlighted this forgery.Opposite party No.3's conduct, as revealed in the letter, confirmed the prosecution's allegation of illegal cattle transportation for slaughter.

It was also contended that the Revisional Court's order lacked consideration for the Act's objectives regarding cattle release.

Mr. Luthra questioned the reasoning of the trial court stating that “if the accused, consignor, consignee, agents and transporter prima facie found guilty of offence due to transportation of more than 6 cattle in one goods carrier/truck, then the accused/owner are not entitled to get interim custody of cattle.” He further argued that even after conviction, the convicts were not entitled to custody under Section 29 of the PCA Act. Therefore, the argument that interim custody could be granted to the owner facing prosecution, and custody could only be deprived upon conviction under the PCA Act, did not align with legal precedent and the Act's objectives.

The court observed that if it's evident from the record that the cattle were being transported in violation of Rule 56(c) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, and no health certificate was issued by the Veterinary Department as per Rule 47(a) of the same rules.

It stated that “there is no question of giving even interim custody to such owner even from the very reading of Section 29 of the PCA Act. Chance of further cruelty likely to be caused to the cattle if given to the perpetrator of law cannot be ruled out, rather in the fitness of things even interim custody should be entrusted to a neutral body, which can protect and preserve the cattle in safe,” while holding that the trial court should decide on the disposal, custody, or confiscation of the cattle and vehicle after the case is finally disposed of, in accordance with the law.

Drawing upon legal precedents and the spirit of animal welfare laws, the court highlighted the need for a thorough examination of the circumstances before granting custody of the animals. Notably, the court referenced a similar case involving the Gau Gyan Foundation 'Rudrashram Gaushala' and emphasised the importance of considering the welfare of the animals at all stages of legal proceedings.

The court stressed the importance of upholding the objectives of the PCA Act and ensuring the wellbeing of the animals while stating that “in the interest and for the wellbeing of the cattle, the petitioner may have a superior right over the opposite party no.3 for getting interim zimma (custody) of the cattle.”

The court further determined that considering the observations made by the court and the petitioner's recent discovery of various documents subsequent to the issuance of the challenged order, purportedly indicate that the opposite party No.3 is not the legitimate owner of the cattle.

In light of these observations, the court criticised the decision of the Revisional Court, which granted interim custody of the cattle to the alleged owner, despite evidence of cruelty and the presentation of fake ownership documents.

Consequently, the High Court overturned the previous ruling and remanded the case for further review, considering newly discovered evidence challenging the ownership claim.

However, it clarified that its decision did not prejudge the merits of the case, leaving the final judgment to the discretion of the District and Sessions Judge.

 

Cause Title: Dhyan Foundation v State of Odisha [CRLMC No.5310 of 2023]