PIL filed Before Bombay HC To Quash Govt Resolution Allowing Withdrawal Of Cases Against Bullock Cart Race Organisers

Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The High Court asked the state government to file its reply and sought clarification regarding the withdrawal of cases against MP and MLA where leave of the High Court is required.

Animal Rights Activist Ajay Marathe has approached the Bombay High Court through a Public Interest Litigation seeking the quashing of a government resolution that allowed the withdrawal of cases registered against person organizing and conducting bullock cart races through a regional committee headed by the Commissioner of Police.

The Public Interest Litigation is filed through Advocate Preet Phanse. The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja today asked the state to file a reply.

The Chief Justice questioned the state to clarify if cases registered against MPs & MLAs will be withdrawn through the same committee since cases registered against MPs and MLAs require leave of the High Court for withdrawal of cases. 

The plea states that as per the government resolution a committee is formed which recommends the cases which are to be withdrawn, upon which the public prosecutor approaches the concerned court for withdrawal.

The plea reads, "What is expected is that the public prosecutor takes a decision on a case-to-case basis, weighing factors such as the severeness of the crime and its impact on the society and in examining whether withdrawal from the case or continuing the prosecution will lead to meeting the ends of justice."

Further, it states that the role of the public prosecutor is to act as an independent, impartial person and his role is not limited to seeking directions from the court in a mechanical manner without application of mind.

The plea also states that the resolution is in contravention of Section 321 of CrPC and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, therefore, the said resolution which lays down a general policy for the withdrawal of cases is arbitrary and bad in law.

The petitioner has submitted that if such a withdrawal of cases is allowed it would defeat the purpose of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960.

"If the offenders are let go without prosecution and unpunished, the instances of cruelty against animals and violation of the Act and the Rules will increase further and defeat the purpose of the enactment of the PCA Act," the plea adds.

The petitioner has also submitted that if the withdrawal of cases is allowed against persons who had not sought permission for organizing the races under the PCA Act then such a withdrawal will defeat the purpose of the PCA Act which imposes a fine up to 5 lakh and imprisonment of 3 years.