Read Time: 06 minutes

The Nagpur High Court has recently allowed a truck to stand as security for the purpose of the cost of maintenance of 19 Bullocks, the truck was seized by police carrying Bullocks allegedly for the purpose of slaughter.

A bench of Justice Avinash G Gharote noted that, "the vehicle has to stand as security for the purpose of cost of maintenance which admittedly has not been paid or deposited by the petitioner."

The bench was hearing a plea challenging order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class on an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking interim custody of the cattle i.e. 16 bullocks and 3 calves and the vehicle being TATA Truck whereby the said application has been rejected in so far as the bullocks and calves are concerned and the petitioner was directed to execute the bond as per Rule 5(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules 2017 and in case the bond is not so executed, the seized cattle shall stand forfeited to the objector.

In addition to this, the petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 200 per day per cattle towards the daily maintenance of the seized cattle, and the truck was to be held as security as per the provisions of Rule 5(4) Rules 2017.

However, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that since the license was issued to the petitioner as a broker by the APMC Murtizapur for sale and purchase of the bullocks and calves, the petitioner was entitled to deal in those animals.

Also, the petition had sought direction for the reduction of the maintenance amount from Rs. 200 to Rs. 20 per day per animal.

The petitioner had contended that all the animals were procured by him for the purpose of agriculture and cultivation not for any business or sale or for the purpose of slaughter.

However, the Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the amount of Rs. 200/- per day per animal is minimum fixed by Maharashtra Animal Welfare Board as being required for proper nourishment of the animal and therefore, the same would govern the field and the learned JMFC has rightly directed deposit of that amount for the purpose of maintenance of the animal.

The respondents further submitted that the intention of the petitioner not to maintain the animals, in case they are handed to him is manifest by his seeking reduction of the amount of maintenance from Rs 200/- to Rs. 20/- as no animal can be maintained at that cost.

The bench observed that the question as to whether the animals which admittedly were purchased for the purpose of trade by the petitioner, were to be used for the purpose of sale, slaughter, or otherwise is a question which will have to be determined by the learned JMFC during the trial of the proceeding.

Whereas the vehicle has to stand as security for the purpose of the cost of maintenance which admittedly has not been paid or deposited by the petitioner, the bench added while dismissing the petition.