DONALD NETTO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by A-1 to A-3 in Crime No.470 of 2005 on the file of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad, to quash the proceedings against them in the said crime,

(2.) At the instance of the second respondent, the crime was registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 429 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 11 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The second respondent filed a complaint before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the Police under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. to register the crime and to investigate the case. On receipt of the said proceedings, the Police registered it as Crime No.470 of 2005 under the penal provisions as referred above. The accused, being aggrieved by the registration of the crime against them, preferred the present Criminal Petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations of the complaint are false and they do not attract the ingredients of any of the penal provisions under which the crime was registered.

(3.) The allegations of the complaint are briefly as follows: The complainant is the owner of four horses out of which the names of two horses are "Onnu Onnu Onnu" and "Heekh Heekh Heekh". As per the existing norms of the Hyderabad Race Course, the complainant entrusted all the four horses to A-1 for training, maintenance and other cautions to be taken by a Trainer. The complainant used to pay Rs.8,000/- per horse per month including the charges of the accused. A-1 agreed not only to train the horses, but also to take care of feed and medical care with all dedication befitting to the circumstances. As per the terms and conditions, A-1 is also entitled to receive certain percentage of the amount won by horse trained by him along with the jockey and owner of the horse. As it came to the knowledge of the complainant about certain amount of negligence on the part of A-1 in training the horses, the complainant instructed A-1 to return the horses. A-1 received the transfer letter from the Hyderabad Race Course and in the process of transfer of the horses, A-1 with the collusion of A-2 and A-3, removed the high heel shoe of two horses as mentioned above and replaced with flat heel shoe which was an act of brutality, hurting and to destroy a living animal intentionally and with a dishonest intention to pull down the performance of the horse "Onnu Onnu Onnu. The fixing of the flat heel shoe would cause lameness to forelegs, which ultimately affects on the Jockey and horse resulting in severe pain. At the time of taking return of the horses from A-1, another Trainer, to whom the horses were transferred, brought to the notice of the complainant about the change of shoe heels. The complainant lodged a report with the Hyderabad Race Club and on consequence of the same, an enquiry was conducted and came to a conclusion that the accused deliberately changed the horse shoes which will affect the performance of the horse including the cruelty to the horse by resulting in dislocation of joint shoulders or fractures to the horse. Accused No.1, being influential, was imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- and suspension of licence for a period of one month from 16-11-2005 to 15-12-2005 for changing the shoes to the horse "Onnu Onnu Onnu" on 19-02-2005. The complainant further alleged that the above acts of A-1 will come out of jealousy and vengeance on account of transfer of horse to another Trainer. A-1 connived with A-2 and A-3 in changing the high heel shoes of the torelegs of the horses with flat shoes, thereby committed breach of trust and cheated the complainant with a dishonest intention to deceive him and badly effect the condition on the animal not only in the race, but also in the normal life, which will result in severe pain and cause lameness of fracture to the animals. Hence, the complaint to prosecute the accused.