Landmark Ruling on Interim Custody of Seized Cattle

In a landmark legal decision, the High Court recently addressed the issue of interim custody of seized cattle, delving into the nuances of the law surrounding animal welfare and rights. The court’s thorough legal analysis and interpretation provide valuable insights into the application of relevant statutes and precedents in such cases. Let’s explore the implications of this ruling on the protection of animals and the judicial review of custody decisions.

Facts

A truck carrying eighteen heads of cattle was intercepted on 17 March 2019.
Private respondents did not have proper permits for transporting the cattle in the truck.
The truck driver, the eighth respondent, could not provide a satisfactory explanation about the permits.
The cattle were seized, and an FIR was registered for multiple offences.
The appellant, a gaushala, filed an application for interim custody of the cattle during the trial.
The JMFC granted interim custody to the appellant and ordered private respondents to pay maintenance costs.
Revision allowed by Sessions Judge due to failure to consider Section 457 of CrPC
Petition filed under Article 227 against Sessions Judge’s order
High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227
Additional Sessions Judge granted custody of seized animals to private respondents with indemnity bond
High Court upheld the order of Sessions Judge based on a previous court decision
High Court noted the inhumane transportation conditions of the seized cattle
High Court found no evidence of physical harm or danger to the cattle
High Court highlighted the lack of apprehension if cattle were returned to owners
Sessions Judge recognized private respondents as owners with preferential right to custody

Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated

Analysis

The High Court noted a factual situation where seized cattle remained under custody for a decade beyond their commercial utility.
The Magistrate was expected to consider circumstances outlined in a previous judgment of the Court when dealing with an interim custody application for animals.
The decision to grant interim custody based on Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act without appropriate consideration of circumstances was deemed perverse and arbitrary.
The High Court upheld the order of the Sessions Court in revision, citing the reasons mentioned above.
The High Court’s direction was contrary to the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act and needed to be set aside in favor of the JMFC’s order.
Two cattle died since the seizure in February 2019, leaving sixteen in the appellant’s custody.
The High Court should have ensured proper preservation of seized cattle till the trial’s conclusion as per the Transport of Animal Rules 1978.
The appellant was willing to accept custody of the seized cattle, as allowed by the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act.
The decision in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Another case regarding interim custody under the PCA Act was noted but not directly applicable in this case.
The High Court found cruelty in transporting eighteen cattle in one vehicle, violating rules and provisions of the PCA Act.
The proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act aims to protect cows, bulls, and bullocks used for various purposes.
The appellant’s readiness to accept interim custody of the cattle was acknowledged.
Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act empowers a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or a duly authorized person to seize a cow, bull, or bullock if they suspect a contravention of Sections 5A, 5B, 5C, or 5D.
The provision also allows for the seizure of the vehicle in which the cattle are being transported.
The proviso to Section 8(3) was added in 1995 by an Amending Act.
Trials for offences punishable under the Maharashtra Act must be concluded expeditiously.
Two of the cattle involved in the present case have died.