Read Time: 11 minutes

A single judge bench of Justice BP Routray of the Orissa High Court has set aside orders releasing 7 trucks/containers involved in illegal and cruel cattle transportation to the owners, stating that the release would be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 (Rules 2017). The court held that the Act and the Rules are mandatory to be considered in such cases, even while deciding upon question of release of vehicles involved.

The court was hearing criminal miscellaneous applications seeking the setting aside of orders of the Sessions Court releasing the 7 vehicles involved in cruel and illegal transportation of cattle.

Facts

The cases related to the release of 7 vehicles seized in connection with a case for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 379/411/294/353/332/506/34 of the IPC and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The informant, a Sub-Inspector of Police, had seized the 7 trucks/containers "as they were transporting 88 cattle (45 cows and 43 bullocks) illegally in closed containers in a cruel and  wretched condition. Most of the cattle were bleeding at the feet being tied to the padlock and some of them have died" due to the cruel conditions of transport, according to the narration.

Pending trial of the cases, the respective owners of the vehicles prayed for release of their vehicles in terms of the provisions contained in Sections 451 & 457 of the CrPC.

The Trial Court rejected the applications, however, the Sessions Courts allowed them in revision pleas. The present miscellaneous petitions were preferred against the Sessions Courts' orders.

Contentions

Sr. Adv. Sidharth Luthra appearing for the petitioner, argued that the cattle were transported violating the provisions of the PCA Act as well as Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.

He pointed out that Rule 5(4) of the 2017 Rules mandates to keep every seized vehicle involved in illegal transport offences under the PCA Act as security pending trial.

He further pointed out that Rule 5(5)
prescribes that the owner of the vehicle, transporter and others shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of the animals.

It was argued that the revisional court had failed to appreciate such liability of the owners before directing for release of the vehicles.

The accused persons argued that no purpose would be served by keeping the vehicles unused, and this won't be beneficial to either party.

It was further pointed out that when the revisional courts had directed for deposit of property security or indemnity bond along with cash security, the orders directing release of the vehicles cannot be termed as illegal in any event.

The Advocate General supported the petitioner’s contention and submitted that, "it is mandatory for the courts to consider the provisions under the PCA Act and the Rules while considering prayer for release of the seized vehicle involving offences under the PCA Act."

Reasoning and Decision

Setting aside the Sessions Courts' orders releasing the vehicles to the owners on execution of indemnity bonds, the bench of Justice Routray reasoned that, "Admittedly, the alleged offences include the offence under the PCA Act. The PCA Act has been enacted with the objective to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering to animals... Section 38 gives power to make rules."

The bench said, "The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, which has been framed by exercising power under Section 38 of the PCA Act, deals with the procedure for custody of rescued animals, the cost of care and keeping of animals pending litigations, their status upon disposal of litigation and disposition."

The court while setting aside the revisional court's decision, relied on Rule 5(4) and Rule 5(5) of the 2017 Rules which provide that 

"(4) Where a vehicle has been involved in an offence, the magistrate shall direct that the vehicle be held as a security.
(5) In case of offence relating to transport of animals, the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents and any other parties involved shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of animals."

Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's decision in order dated July 5, 2019 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6472 of 2019 wherein it was observed that, “…We have gone through the order passed by the High Court. The High Court remitted the matter to the Court below to consider application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners for release of truck afresh on its own merits. We have no doubt that while considering the application, the Magistrate shall also take into consideration the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Case and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.

Noting that in the present case "the revisional courts while directing the interim release of the vehicles have not taken into consideration the provisions enshrined in the PCA Act and 2017 Rules," the Court said that they appear to be "ignorant of the provisions in the Act and Rules."

The bench therefore held that "Such provisions enshrined under the PCA Act and Rules are mandatory to be considered, specifically Rule 5 of the 2017 Rules, before deciding the prayer for interim release of the vehicle involved in offences under the PCA Act," and set aside the revisional courts' decision releasing the vehicles involved in cruel and illegal transportation of cattle.

Cause Title: Jiba Bikash Parishad v State of Odisha & Another