1997 (4) TMI 535 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus of Panjrapole to apply and approach the High Court for interim custody of animals.
2. Rule regarding interim custody of animals pending investigation, inquiry, or trial.
3. Liability for costs of maintenance of animals while in custody of Panjrapole.
4. Legality of seizure of animals by police in non-cognizable cases under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and its effect on interim custody orders.
5. Criteria for courts to adopt while directing interim custody of animals seized for offenses under the Act of 1960 and other ancillary Acts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Question 1: Locus of Panjrapole
The court examined whether Panjrapole has the locus to apply for interim custody of animals or approach higher courts. The counsel for the animal owners argued that Panjrapole, being merely a custodian, lacks such locus. They cited previous judgments where Panjrapole was deemed unconnected to the merits of the case. Conversely, Panjrapole's counsel argued that their interest in animal welfare grants them the right to approach the court. The court concluded that Panjrapole, being an important institution under the Act of 1960, has a vested interest and thus, locus to maintain a petition regarding interim custody of animals.

Question 2: Rule Regarding Interim Custody
The court considered whether interim custody should mandatorily be given to Panjrapole. The counsel for Panjrapole argued that Section 35 of the Act mandates such custody. However, the court noted that the use of "shall" in the statute does not necessarily make the provision mandatory. The court reviewed several cases where animals died in Panjrapole's custody, indicating poor maintenance. The court determined that Section 35(2) does not impose a duty on the court to give custody to Panjrapole as a rule. Instead, custody should be decided based on the welfare of the animal and other relevant factors.

Question 3: Liability for Maintenance Costs
The court addressed whether the owner alone should bear the costs of maintaining the animals while in Panjrapole's custody. The counsel for the owners argued that either Panjrapole or the State should bear these costs. The court noted that the Act provides financial resources for Panjrapole's maintenance of animals. It concluded that the State or Panjrapole, whoever seeks custody, must bear the maintenance costs, not the owner.

Question 4: Legality of Seizure in Non-Cognizable Cases
The court examined the legality of police seizing animals in non-cognizable cases under the Act of 1960. The counsel for the owners argued that such seizures are illegal without a magistrate's order. However, the court found that Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. allows police to seize property suspected of being involved in any offense, including non-cognizable ones. Thus, the police have the authority to seize animals under suspicion of an offense, and the magistrate can pass appropriate orders regarding custody.

Question 5: Criteria for Interim Custody
The court provided guidelines for courts to consider while directing interim custody of animals:
- Preservation of livestock and elimination of cruelty.
- Avoidance of decisions based on emotions or sentiments.
- Custody to the owner if it's a first offense unless there are strong reasons to believe further cruelty will occur.
- Necessity of animal presence during trial.
- Imposing conditions if custody is given to Panjrapole, including proper maintenance, no selling or transferring of animals, and compensation for any loss of animals.

Application of Principles to Specific Cases:

Criminal Revision Application No. 24 of 1996:
The court upheld the decision to grant interim custody to the owner, noting it was a first offense and there was no likelihood of further cruelty.

Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 225/1996 and 226/1996:
The court rejected the applications, affirming that custody should not be given to Panjrapole as a rule and upholding the lower court's decision to release animals to the owner.

Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 408/1992, 2/1993, and 3/1993:
The court quashed the second revision order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, and directed a fresh hearing with all concerned parties.

Special Criminal Application No. 1431/96:
The court quashed the orders of the lower courts and directed a rehearing of the revision application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, at Palanpur.

Final Order:
The court issued specific orders for each application, either rejecting or allowing them and directing rehearings where necessary.