Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Criminal Appeal No. 2020 of 2009 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 198 of 2009). Case: Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Another Vs Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Others. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 11 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 2020 of 2009 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 198 of 2009)
CounselFor Appearing Parties: Shyam Diwan, R.K. Abhichandani, Anoop G. Chaudhary and S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Advs., E.R. Kumar, Virat Popat, S. Padhi, Pallavi Sharma and Ashish Vaid, Advs. for Parekh & Co., S.R. Sundram, Praveena Gautam, Anjali Sharma, S.A. Saud, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Sanjay Ghosh, Anitha Shenoy, Hemantika Wahi, K. Enaatoli Sema, Nikita and ...
JudgesH. S. Bedi and J. M. Panchal, JJ.
IssuePrevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Sections 11(1)(d), 35, 35(4); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 279, 395, 427, 506(2); Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 - Sections 5, 6, 8; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as amended by Act No.25 of 2005 & Act No.2 of 2006) - Sections 451, 457, 482; Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22...
Citation2009 (3) ACR 3370 (SC), AIR 2010 SC 475, 2010 CriLJ 379, 2010 (1) Cri 38 (SC), 2010 GLH (1) 221, 2010 GLH (221) 1, 2010 (1) GLR 571 (SC), JT 2009 (14) 102 SC, 2010 (1) PLJR 50, 2009 (13) SCALE 563, 2010 (1) SCC 234, 2009 (15) SCR 662, 2010 (1) UC 98
Judgement DateNovember 04, 2009
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

J. M. Panchal, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment dated December 30, 2008, rendered by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 1387 of 2008 by which, while dealing with two prayers made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein, namely, (a) to declare that the order dated July 5, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa, refusing to hand over custody of the live stock to them is illegal and (b) to declare that they are entitled to get custody of the entire live stock, which is in illegal custody of Bharat Kothari, i.e., appellant No. 1 herein and confined in the Panjarapole at Kanth, near Deesa, the learned Single Judge has:-

    i) held that each of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are guilty under Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and punished each of them with fine of Rs.50/-;

    ii) quashed the FIR No. II-C.R.No. 3131 of 2008, registered with Deesa City Police Station for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, at the instance of the appellant No. 1 as well as the proceedings pursuant thereto, including the orders for interim custody of the animals and the revision applications preferred therefrom;

    iii) directed the appellant No. 1 to pay, by way of compensation and cost, to each of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 a sum of Rs.75,000/-, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the criminal proceedings initiated by way of Criminal Inquiry Case No. 237 of 2008 and pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, as well as to pay, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 the cost of maintenance and treatment of the animals in question to the respondent No. 8 herein, i.e., Panjarapole Patan in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 35 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, within a period of one month, i.e., latest by January 30, 2009;

    iv) directed respondent No. 8, which is entrusted care and custody of the animals under interim order, to hand over the surviving animals to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in such proportion as the original number of seized animals bears to the number of surviving animals;

    v) directed the State of Gujarat, i.e., respondent No. 7 herein, to take appropriate departmental action for illegal or unauthorized actions, if any, on the part of any police officer and if, upon inquiry it prima facie appears that any police officer has participated in a cognizable offence, to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against such officer;

    vi) directed the Registrar of the High Court to serve copy of the judgment upon the appellant No. 2, i.e., Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 13/1, Third Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvamiyr, Chennai; and

    vii) directed (a) the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to take over the custody and care of surviving animals within two weeks and (b) that the Police Officer in-charge of the Police Station at Patan to supervise the delivery of the animals to the respondents by the appellant or respondent No. 8 in such manner that the animals are not subjected to further cruelty in their transportation within the area of his jurisdiction. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are further directed not to commit any offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in respect of the surviving animals and submit an undertaking to that effect to the police officer in-charge of the Police Station at Patan.

  3. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: -

    The appellant No. 1 is an Animal Right Activist. He is also Secretary of Rajpur-Deesa Panjarapole, which is a public trust and involved in preservation of old, infirm and stray cattle. One of the objects of the trust is to prevent illegal and unauthorized transportation and slaughtering of animals. On June 16, 2008 he with others was present at Deesa. He received a message that certain trucks with goats and animals had left from Badmer to go to Ahmedabad via Deesa and Palanpur. In view of this information he and others, i.e., Jivdaya Dharmendra Kokani, Vijaybhai Chauhan, Bherabhai Mali and Shivrambhai Mali kept a watch at Jalaram Cross Road since 11.00 P.M. in the night. At about 2.00 A.M. on 17.6.2008 they noticed that a line of trucks was coming from Gayatri Temple. They waived their hands and search light to stop the trucks but the drivers of the trucks did not stop the vehicles and were found driving trucks speedily towards Palanpur. Therefore, the appellant No. 1 and others sat in an interceptor vehicle bearing registration number GJ-8-A-1294 and followed the trucks. The appellant No. 1 had his mobile phone with him and, therefore, informed the Police Control, Palanpur that trucks loaded with goats and sheep were coming speedily towards Palanpur, whereas he and others were following those trucks and, therefore, necessary action should be taken to halt the trucks at Aroma Circle Check Post. When the trucks reached near Aroma Circle, the drivers spotted the police. Therefore, they stopped their vehicles and, after leaving the trucks, ran away. On search being made, it was found that in all there were eight trucks and in each truck, goats and sheep were being conveyed in a congested manner. It was also noticed that there was no facility of fodder, water, etc. in any of the trucks and that the drivers had meted out cruelty to the animals. On making the inquiry as to who were driving the trucks, it was found that (1)Ramjanbhai Ibrahimbhai Sindhi, resident of Nilana, Taluka Shiv, District Badmer, (2) Rojakhan Dosukhan Sindhi, resident of Lilasa, Taluka Shiv, District Badmer and (3) Jamalkhan Dinakhan Sindhi, resident of Nimlatada, Taluka Shiv, District Badmer, Rajasthan, were drivers of some of the trucks. They were arrested and on being questioned, it was informed by Ramjanbhai Ibrahimbhai Sindhi that the others were cleaners of the trucks. It was also learnt from Ramjanbhai Ibrahimbhai Sindhi that the goats and sheep loaded in the trucks were brought from Badmer to be taken to Ranip Slaughter House, Ahmedabad. He was called upon to produce permit for loading the goats and sheep, but he could not produce the same. It was further learnt that the goats and sheep were filled in the trucks in an unauthorized and cruel manner. Therefore, the goats and sheep were taken to Deesa from Palanpur in the trucks and other vehicles. One of such vehicle, i.e., mini truck No. GJ-9-Y-5143, conveying the goats and sheep from Palanpur to Deesa, had overturned on the side of the road as a result of which some animals had died. The truck, which had overturned, was left at the place where it had overturned and other trucks were taken with goats and sheep to Kanth Panjarapole, Deesa. The trucks, which were being driven from Badmer, were also taken to the said Panjarapole. It was further found that in all there were 1974 animals out of which 99 animals had died and that 1875 goats and sheep worth Rs.400/- each were kept in the Panjarapole, Deesa. of which the appellant No. 1 is the Secretary. Under the circumstances the appellant No. 1 filed complaint against Ramjanbhai Ibrahimbhai Sindhi and others for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short the "Act") and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954.

  4. The record further shows that another FIR was lodged on June 17, 2008 at 1430 hours with Palanpur Police...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
11 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT