NASEERULAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of dismissal of the application seeking for return of property viz., seized animals.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of 24 cows. While he was transporting the same in one lorry bearing Registration No.TN-25-4577, the lorry and the cows were seized by the police on 16.04.2010 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. According to him, he has not committed any offence and he is the legitimate owner of the property viz., cows. He further stated that as the vehicle has been returned to the owner, the cows should be returned to him. He undertakes to produce the cows before the Court as and when required. This application was stoutly resisted not only by the Public Prosecutor but also by the intervenor/complainant viz., the second respondent herein who is impleaded as party viz., the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Ecological Animal Protection Society(TEAPS).

(3.) The main contention of the second respondent/intervenor/ complainant was that the owner has transported the cows numbering 24 in one lorry in an inhumane condition. Further, there is a specific allegation that the cows were transported for slaughtering. Out of 24 cows, one cow was pregnant. Therefore, the petitioner has violated all norms, rules and regulations in transporting the animals. According to him, the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He has also violated the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 enacted in exercise of powers conferred under Section 38(2)(h) and Rule 56 (c) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and also committed offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code as also Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958. Even he has also committed offence punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the custody of the cattle should not be given back to the petitioner/owner, especially, when there is an embargo under Section 29 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which deprives of a person convicted under the provisions of the Act from claiming ownership. Therefore, the lower Court was correct in dismissing the application and this revision ought to be dismissed. He also relies upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1534 of 2001, dated 22.01.2002 reported in (Prema Veeraraghavan v. State by the Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedue P.S., Chennai and another,2002 1 CTC 672) whereby it was specifically rejected the plea of a person who has committed the offence cannot be entrusted with the property even though he may be the owner of the property, especially, in this case where there is a clear violation of Acts and inhumane treatment meted out to the animals and it is specifically transported for butchery which is prohibited. He also brought to the notice of this Court the subsequent event that in this case even though 24 cows were seized by the police as early as on April, 2010, they were badly injured and they were exhausted. They were all suffocated and one of the animals died there itself and after that in the course of six months when it was in the custody of the second respondent, 21 of them died due to injuries and internal bleedings caused because of the inhumane transportation. Therefore, the subsequent event also has to be taken note of by this Court. For which, he has also produced the post-mortem certificate of the animals conducted by the Veterinary Surgeon. In this background, he also contend that sufficient safeguard has to be made and issued by this Court prohibiting such violations which occurred regularly and especially meted out to the poor, unfortunate animals which cannot speak for themselves.