RESTRICTIONS ON RELEASE OF SEIZED

ANIMALS IN TRANSIT BY RAIL

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Hon’ble Mr. G.P. Mathur, J.
Hon’ble Mr. S.K. Jain, J.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 116 of 2001
Decided on 22-1-2001

Sat Paul Passy

v.
State of Uttar Pradesh

S.K. JAIN, J.—The petitioners have come up with the prayers seeking the
release of 624 milch cattle (615 milch cows and 9 milch she buffaloes) which were
seized from the Railway wagons at Ghaziabad Railway Station on the morning
of 29-12-2000 in connection with crime No. 374 of 2000 under section 153A, I.P.C.
and under sections 3, 5A and 8 of U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955
and also under sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and
for staying the arrest of the petitioners in connection with case crime No. 374 of
2000 under section 153A, I.P.C. and under sections 4, 5A and 8 of U.P. Prevention
of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 and also under sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners purchased 631
milch cows and 9 milch she buffaloes, were suckling from different markets and
from different farmers from the State of Punjab & Haryana and the same were
brought by the petitioners at village Qila Raipur in District Ludhiana (Punjab) for
transporting them for sale in West Bengal on 12-12-2000. It is stated that the
Government of Punjab has passed an Act known as the Punjab Prohibition of
Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 under which certain restrictions have been imposed
against the export of cows out of the State. Section 4A of the said Act provides
that no person shall export or cause to be exported cow for the purpose of
slaughter either directly or through his agent or servant or any other person
acting on his behalf in contravention of the provisions of the Act or with the
knowledge that it will be or is likely to be slaughtered. Section 4B provides that
any person desiring to export cows shall apply for a permit to such officer, as the
Government may, by notification, appoint in this behalf, stating the reasons for
which they are to be exported as also the number of cows and the name of the
State to which they are proposed to be exported and shall also file a declaration
to the effect that the cows for which permit for export is required shall not be
slaughtered.
 As per the Notification/Rules/instructions of the Government of Punjab a no-
objection certificate from the concerned District Magistrate is required to be
obtained before exporting milch cattle. The petitioners applied to the District
Magistrate Ludhiana for issuance of the required licence for transportation of the
aforesaid cattle from Qila Raipur, District Ludhiana to Howrah through Railway.
It is stated that the petitioners has complied with all formalities and has
made compliance of all the relevant Rules before loading the aforesaid cattle in
the Railway wagons. The petitioners had obtained no-objection certificate from
the District Magistrate Ludhiana for transportation of the said cattle from Qila
Raipur, District Ludhiana through Railway and also 39 permits from the
veterinary officer, Qila Raipur, District Ludhiana granted on 23-12-2000 and
issued to them on 26-12-2000. It is contended that the petitioners having
compliance with all formalities and having made compliance of all the Rules
applicable in Punjab had loaded the said cattle in the Railway wagons, which
were to pass through U.P. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the train on way to Howrah from Punjab would have passed through the
territory of many States and no enquiry could have been made by any State
regarding the validity of transportation of the said cattle as the laws of the
concerned State would not be applicable. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioners the provisions of U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act will not
apply in the instant case as the origin of the export of the said cattle is from
Punjab and since the petitioner has made compliance of all the relevant
provisions of law and Rules prevailing in Punjab where the aforesaid cattle were
loaded in the Railway wagons, no offence has been committed in U.P. as no
provision of U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act has been violated. Lastly, it
has been argued that since the cattle were comfortably placed in adequate
number in each wagon of the train the petitioners have not committed breach of
any provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act as they have not
subjected the cattle to cruelty. That being so they are not liable under the said Act
also.
In response it has been argued by the learned A.G.A. that the petitioners
have committed offences under sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act. It is argued that there is violation of Rule 55 provided under the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Rule 55 of the said Act lays down that an
ordinary goods wagon shall carry not more than ten adult cattle or fifteen calves,
on broad gauge not more than six adult cattle or ten calves on metro guage and
not more than four adult cattle or six calves on narrow guage. Admittedly, the
petitioners had loaded 615 cows, 9 she buffaloes and 547 calves in 39 Railway
wagons. Thus we find that on an average in one wagon 16 adult cattle and 14
calves were loaded. It has been argued by the learned A.G.A. that the petitioners
had heavily and forcibly loaded the said cattle in the wagon far exceeding the
prescribed number of cattle which, ought to have been loaded in each wagon in
accordance with Rule 55 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and
therefore it clearly amounts to cruelty within the meaning of sections 3 and 11
of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
While transporting animals by train Railway Administrations are required to
observe the conditions laid down in the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 framed
by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation in exercise of
the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (2) of sections 3 & 8 of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960). Where the cattle are
transported by broad guage the said Rule provides that normally 10 horned
cattle, or 15 calves and suckling of horned cattle or 8 adult cattle with suckling
will be loaded in a four wheeler wagon. In the instant case we find that the
petitioners have loaded the cattle far exceeding the number prescribed by the
Rules. There appears to be force in the argument of the learned A.G.A. that the
petitioners have forcibly loaded the cattle in the wagons in much higher number
than the capacity of each wagon and this act of the petitioners amounts to cruelty
to animals.
It may be added here that Rule 50 of Rules framed under the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act provides that the average space provided per cattle in the
Railway wagon or vehicle shall not be less than two square metres. Since a very
little space was provided for each cattle in the wagon we have no escape from
the conclusion that the said cattle were subjected to cruelty and since the same
is a continuing offence the petitioners may be tried in U.P. for the commission
of the said offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
It may be further added here that during the transit 7 calves were found
dead. Autopsy on two calves was conducted and the post-mortem report shows
that the heart of both the calves were found ruptured. This fact further lends
support to the argument of learned A.G.A that the cattle were heavily and
forcibly loaded in the wagons exceeding the prescribed limit and this act of the
petitioners has resulted in cruelty to the said cattle within the meaning of
sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
It has been next argued that the petitioners have obtained one no-objection
certificate and permits for transportation of 624 cattle only and no permit for
transportation of calves and suckling has been obtained. The Railway receipt has
also been issued for 624 cattle only and there is no mention of calves or suckling
in it. Learned A.G.A has strenuously argued that since the petitioners have
concealed the transportation of 547 calves they have not come with clean hand
and as such no interference in these proceedings is warranted. We have given
our due consideration to the argument and are of the opinion that the petitioners
have made concealment regarding the number of cattle to be transported and
that being so they have not come with clean hand.
Lastly, learned A.G.A. has strongly refuted the petitioners’ contention that
they have committed no offence within the territory of U.P. under the provisions
of the U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act and as such they are not liable for the aforesaid offences and cannot
be tried in U.P. As already mentioned above there is evidence that the petitioners
have committed offences under sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, which is an continuing offence. Also it is to be found that the F.I.R.
has been registered under section 153A, I.P.C. in addition to other
aforementioned offences.
Section 153A, I.P.C. provides as under:
“Whoever—
 (a) by words either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representation or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote, on
grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,
caste or community or any other ground whatsoever,
disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different religious, social, language or regional groups or castes
or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of
harmony between different religious, social, language or regional
groups or castes or communities and which disturbs or is likely
to disturb the public tranquillity, or
(c) .....................................”
In the instant case we find that a huge consignment of 624 cattle (615 milch
cows and 9 milch she buffaloes) along with 547 suckling was seized at Railway
Station Ghaziabad. The said consignment was destined to go to West Bengal
where there is no ban on cow slaughtering. In our opinion, the applicability of
section 153A, I.P.C. in the instant case cannot be ruled out. The F.I.R. discloses
the commission of cognizable offence. In view of this matter, we find that no case
for staying the arrest of the accused has been made out.
In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the opinion
that this case does not warrant any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for either, quashing the F.I.R. or
investigation of the case.
The petitioners have made a prayer for the release of seized cattle in their
favour. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedures provides for disposal
of property. In our opinion the petitioners may be well advised to move an
application for release of the said cattle before the concerned Magistrate. Since
the petitioners have an alternative remedy under the provisions of Cr. P.C. we
are not inclined to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
for the said purpose.
In the result we reach the conclusion that this petition has no force and
deserves to be dismissed.
The petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.