KHALID Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner/accused has sought to challenge the orders dated 24.4.2014 of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Gurgaon (Annexure P1) which have merged in orders dated 22.5.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon (Annexure P/3) whereby his claim to custody of his animals stood declined.

(2.) It was on 20.4.2014, the petitioner Khalid was ferrying in vehicle bearing No.HR-74-1864, 24 buffaloes and was apprehended by the police of Police Station, Manesar, District Gurgaon leading to registration of an FIR No.143 dated 20.4.2014 under Sections 11, 59, 60 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'). It is during the course of things, the petitioner moved an application for superdari of his 24 buffaloes as well as for the release of his vehicle in question, The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon through impugned orders Annexure P/1 ordered the release of the vehicle, however, declining the relief for superdari of 24 buffaloes on the ground that the applicant has failed to show the ownership of the buffaloes or produce any receipt having purchased the same nor has given any justifiable reason as to why he was taking buffaloes in a canter to Delhi. Aggrieved over these findings, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and which was also dismissed vide orders dated 22.5.2014 Annexure P/3 and which are subject matter of challenge in this petition. In the impugned order the precise reasons which have led to passing of these impugned orders are that an owner is not exonerated under Section 11(2) of the Act if he does cruelty to animals and has drawn analogy from a law laid down in State of U.P. v. Mustakeem and another,2002 Supp ACC 272 : Crl. Appeal Nos. 283-287 of 2002 dated 22.2.2012 holding that an order under this Act for release of animal could not be passed.

(3.) Appreciating the arguments that have been advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State. it is an admitted stance of the two sides that there were in all 24 buffaloes at the time of their seizure and it is the submissions of the State that out of them 7 have expired regarding which post mortem reports have been placed on record. The contention that it was on account of stuffing of the animals in the vehicle which has led to these deaths are certainly too preposterous a proposition that has sought to be put forth to take the sympathy of this Court when the post mortem reports placed on record in themselves show the conduct of the doctor of People for Animal Hospital. These reports no where extensively and comprehensively suggests the cause of death and is more of a rough estimation and, therefore, opposition to the plea of the petitioner, on that context certainly needs to be out rightly rejected. Moreover, how the doctor who claims to have conducted the post mortem of these animals could say with certainty that all the animals died on 20.4.2014 when there is no exact reasons and comprehensive causes to that effect to support hypotheses to that end.