SOHIL KURESHI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2023 SCC ONLINE BOM 1565

Facts Of the Case 

1. The present case involves the petitioner, Sohil Kureshi, and the respondents, the State of Maharashtra and another, with respondent no. 2 being Siddha Baal Hanuman Sanstha. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of 17 female buffaloes and 1 male buffalo. On 20th November 2022, a Police Head Constable attached to Morshi Police Station received secret information that certain animals were being transported illegally in a tempo.

2. Acting upon this information, the police intercepted the tempo. Upon inspection, 18 buffaloes were found tightly crammed into the small space available in the vehicle. Accused no. 1, who is the petitioner in this case, was driving the tempo, while accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 were travelling with him as companions. Following this incident, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) for offences allegedly committed under Sections 11(1), 11(1)(c), and 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which relate mainly to acts of cruelty, including unnecessary pain or suffering caused to animals and improper transportation. Additionally, charges were lodged under Section 119 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Sections 83 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deal with offences related to vehicle usage and violations of prescribed rules.

3. After the interception and registration of offences, all 18 buffaloes were taken into custody by the authorities. For the temporary care and maintenance of these animals, they were handed over to Siddha Baal Hanuman Sanstha, which is respondent no. 2 in this case. Both the petitioner, who is also accused no. 1, and respondent no. 2, the Sanstha, filed applications before the competent court seeking interim custody of the buffaloes. The matter was first heard before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who considered the ownership claim of the petitioner and other relevant factors and ultimately granted interim custody of the animals to the petitioner, rejecting the application made by respondent no. 2. Dissatisfied with this order, Siddha Baal Hanuman Sanstha filed a revision application before the Sessions Court, seeking to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

4. The matter was then taken up by the Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the revision application filed by respondent no. 2. The Additional Sessions Judge found merit in the revision application and set aside the earlier order of the Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, the order granting interim custody of the buffaloes to the petitioner was cancelled, and instead, custody was granted to respondent no. 2, Siddha Baal Hanuman Sanstha. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner then approached the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay by filing a writ petition. Through this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to set aside the Sessions Judge’s order and to have custody of the seized animals restored to him, claiming ownership and challenging the grounds on which custody was taken away.

Issues of The Case

1. Whether the Buffaloes were subjected to cruelty? 
2. Whether the Buffaloes were being transported Illegally? 
3. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge was right in handing over the custody to Respondent No 2? 

Judgment: 

The Hon’ble Court of Bombay took into cognizance the relevant legal provisions such as the Transport of the Animals Rules, 1978 and the Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2001 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Therefore, after perusal of the material facts, the judgement delivered is as follows: –

1. The Hon’ble Court looked into the above said provisions. The first issue was discussed with great reliance placed on the Transport of Animals rules, wherein, Rules 47 to 50 and 56 was relied upon Rule 47(a) clearly mandates that a valid certificate must be issued by a qualified veterinary surgeon declaring that the cattle being transported are fit for travel, are free from any infectious, contagious or parasitic diseases, and have been vaccinated. This certificate is a legal precondition for transportation, and in its absence, the law imposes a mandatory obligation upon the carrier to refuse acceptance of the consignment. This rule is enacted with the specific purpose of ensuring that the animals transported are not only healthy and fit to endure the journey. Furthermore, Rule 48 of the same set of regulations requires that a veterinary first-aid kit be carried along with every batch of cattle during transit, which is essential to address any emergency medical need that may arise during transport. In the present case, the Hon’ble Court observed that the owner of the cattle had failed to obtain the required veterinary certificate and had also made no arrangement for the provision of first-aid. 

2. Rule 50 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 deals with the average space that must be provided per cattle that should not be less than two square meters and Rule 56 stipulates the various precautions to be taken. This is to ensure that the animals are not subjected to physical discomfort, overcrowding, or risk of injury due to lack of space. The precaution in clause (c) of Rule 56 stipulates that no goods vehicle shall carry more than six cattle. However, the facts placed on record showed that in the present case, a single tempo was found to be carrying as many as 18 fully grown buffaloes, which is thrice the legally permissible number.  The Court took serious note of this and found that this was a blatant violation of the prescribed safety norms.

3. The precaution in rule 54 provides that adequate watering arrangement shall be carried along with sufficient feed and fodder. This rule ensures that animals are not subjected to starvation or dehydration during transportation but it was found that there was no arrangement of the same. Further, precaution in rule 56 lays down that there should be a special arrangement of a special type of tail board and padding around the sides, this too, was not adhered. These requirements exist to ensure that animals are protected from injury caused by contact with hard vehicle surfaces or accidental jolts during movement. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was a clear indication of violation of the above rules. 

4. The reliance was placed on Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which provides for the special requirements in transporting livestock, wherein, specifically for cows and buffaloes the size of the partition given to them shall not be less than 2 sq. mts and also speaks about the ban on use of the said vehicle to carry any other goods and the requirement of a licence given by the R.T.O for a vehicle transporting animals.  In the present case, the evidence showed that none of these conditions were fulfilled by the petitioner. The tempo used did not meet the spatial requirements, was used for carrying only animals in an extremely crammed condition, and, most crucially, was not licensed by the RTO for the purpose of transporting livestock.

5. With the above reliance and conclusions derived by the Hon’ble Court, the Court held that, the material placed on record clearly shows that 18 fully grown buffaloes were indeed crammed in a tempo and all the relevant rules were violated. It is further held that the animals were indeed subjected to cruelty of an aggravated nature and the buffaloes were in essence, transported illegally.  The Hon’ble Court positively affirmed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class. Henceforth the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The Court affirmed the custody of the buffaloes was rightly given to respondent No 2.

Reasoning

1. In the present matter, the Hon’ble Court drew support from and referred extensively to the precedent set in Ansar Ahmad v. State of Maharashtra, thru. P.S.O (2023 SCC Online Bom 1123. In the cited case, the Bombay High Court ruled that interim custody of seized cattle (milching buffaloes) would not be granted to the petitioners (owners) while proceedings were pending. The Court determined that the animals were transported in violation of statutory rules specifically, more than six cattle were transported in a single goods vehicle, without proper certificates, and in conditions that constituted cruelty. The Court emphasized that animal welfare, protection, and maintenance must be the primary considerations in such cases, and that the statutory and regulatory framework must be strictly followed. The Honourable Court of Bombay took reference to this case as the facts of the case are identical and the issue was also covered by this case. 

2. The Court referred to The Transport of Animals Rules 1978 rules clearly stipulate the obtainment of a valid certificate which a qualified veterinary is supposed to issue which declares that the animals are fit for travel and are vaccinated against diseases. The Hon’ble Court upon reference with the material facts placed on record ascertained that the Petitioner had no such certificate in possession. This clearly reflects the petitioner’s failure to comply with the applicable rules and regulatory requirements

3. Rule 50 specifies that a space of not less than two square meters have to be mandatorily given to each cattle. It was assessed by the court that the cattle were not given this average space and all the 18 buffaloes were crammed up in a tempo without any space between them. This signifies breach of rule no. 50.  

4. Rule 56 lays down the various precautions that has to be taken while transporting cattle that is – there has to be a special arrangement with regard to special type of tail board and padding around the sides, and in case of ordinary goods vehicle a special anti – slipping material so that there is no stampede. Here, it is observed that there is no such arrangement with regard to the special type of tail board and padding and there was no anti slipping material on the floor of the vehicle. This was evidently in direct breach of the rule stated above.

5. Rule 125E of Central Motor vehicles Rules, 1989, under sub section 2 clause (I), specifies the space to be given for cows and Buffaloes is 2 square meters and it also mandates that the Regional Transport Officer shall issue special licenses for the motor vehicle which is meant for carrying animals. Neither of the above said rules were complied with by the Petitioner in this case. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court concluded that the animals had undeniably been subjected to cruelty of a severe and aggravated nature.

References

1. https://www.scconline.com

Written by S. Kaviya Sri an Intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.