Summary
Eighteen cattle carried in one truck without permits were seized, and offences were registered under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and the PCA Act, 1960. The Magistrate gave interim custody to a gaushala under the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act. The Sessions Court and the High Court gave custody to the owners, applying Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar on Section 35(2) of the PCA Act. The Supreme Court held that Pinjrapole Deudar concerned a discretionary power. The proviso to Section 8(3) directs that seized cattle go, pending trial, to a willing goshala or animal welfare body, with the accused paying for their upkeep. The transport was prima facie cruel, so the Magistrate's order was restored. Trials under the Act must be concluded quickly.
Issues
- Whether, for cattle seized under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, interim custody pending trial is governed by the proviso to Section 8(3) or by the discretionary factors in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar under Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
- Whether the owners, found prima facie transporting cattle in cruel conditions without permits, were entitled to interim custody.
- What directions should be given to avoid seized cattle being held indefinitely pending trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 8(3) and proviso (inserted by 1995 amendment, in force from 4 March 2015), Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976The proviso directs that seized cows, bulls or bullocks be handed over pending trial to the nearest willing gosadan, goshala, pinjrapole or welfare organisation, with the accused liable for maintenance. The High Court's direction was contrary to it. (¶¶ 12, 14, 20, 21)
- Section 35(2), Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960This provision, construed in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar, only allows the Magistrate a discretion to send animals to a pinjrapole. That reasoning does not control the specific proviso in the Maharashtra Act. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Rule 56, Transport of Animals Rules, 1978The Rule limits a goods vehicle to six cattle. Carrying eighteen in one truck was prima facie cruelty, which supported keeping the animals with the gaushala. (¶¶ 7, 19, 20)
Held
- Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar interpreted Section 35(2) of the PCA Act, which gives a discretion and no preference to a pinjrapole. The High Court was wrong to apply it in place of the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18)
- The proviso to Section 8(3) gives effect to the Act's object of preserving cattle useful for milk, breeding, draught and agriculture. Seized cattle are to go, pending trial, to a willing animal welfare organisation, and the appellant was willing. (¶ 20)
- Because the owners were prima facie carrying the cattle in cruel conditions without valid permits, the Magistrate rightly held that the cattle would be safe with the gaushala. The High Court's contrary direction was set aside. (¶¶ 19, 21)
- Two of the cattle had already died, and in another case cattle had been held for a decade. Trials under the Maharashtra Act should be concluded expeditiously, preferably within six months, so that animals are not held indefinitely. This trial was to finish within three months. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the Magistrate's order of 1 April 2019 giving interim custody to the gaushala was restored. The appellant waived maintenance charges, and the trial was to be concluded within three months.