ASIFA SULTANAHAFEEZ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that petitioner No.3 is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.11/2018 registered by respondent No.1 based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 namely, Assistant Director, Animal Husbandary Department, Bidar on the allegation that without specific licence for packing, re-packing, processing, storage or trading, the petitioners were found packing cow meat by fixing the label "SUPER Fresh frozen boneless buffalo meat" and thereby were cheating the Government. The said allegations do not make out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 or 429 of IPC.

(3.) The contentions of the petitioners are that, respondent No.2 had approached the unit of the petitioners without registering the complaint with the jurisdictional police. Therefore, the registration of the case and the seizure of the meat from the storage of the petitioners is contrary to the procedure contemplated under law. Respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction either in law or under any provisions of the Act to hold a surprise visit to the unit of the petitioners and to conduct a panchanama. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners are bad in law. The petitioners further contend that they have been carrying on the business under valid licence issued by the competent authority. The said licence is renewed from time to time. The seized meat belongs to various customers of the petitioners who have submitted certificates issued by the competent authorities and the same were produced before the Courts below to justify that the seized material was buffalo meat. Further, it is contended that, neither the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1964" for short), nor the provisions of Indian Penal Code are attracted against the petitioners. The person who collected the samples was not a competent officer under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Assistant Director of Animal Husbandary Department had no authority to certify or to seize the material from the premises of the petitioners. Respondent No.1-police have blindly registered the case against petitioner No.3. The application filed by the petitioners for release of the seized meat has been rejected by the Courts below erroneously without considering the illegalities in the seizure of the meat belonging to the petitioners and thus, the petitioners have sought for release of the meat seized under PF Nos.6/2018 and 7/2018 and to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.11/2018.