Dismissed

Hasar Ali and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC11 May 2022Crl.Rev.P./106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition seeking custody of seized cattle. The Court upheld the lower court's order rejecting the zimma petition, finding a prima facie case of cruelty due to non-execution of the mandatory bond and violation of transport norms.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 28.02.2022 rejecting the zimma petition was affirmed.

Hasar Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010049942022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./106/2022

¶5

HASAR ALI AND ANR SON OF MD. BAKKAR ALI R/O DOLGAON, KUNNAHOTA P.S. DOLGAON DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM

¶6

2: JILLUL ALI SON OF AIJAL HOQUE R/O NO. 1 SIALMARI DOLGAON GRANT P.S. DOLGAON DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN-78411 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BHUYAN

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶9

BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

O R D E R

Page No.# 2/5

11.05.2022.

By way of this petition under Section 397/401, read with 482 of the CrPC, the petitioners challenge the order dated 28.02.2022, passed by the learned SDJM (M), Gohpur in petition No.78/2022, in G.R. Case No.7/2022, arising out of Gohpur P.S. Case No.06/2022, whereby the zimma petition filed by the petitioners for custody of 29 nos. of cattle was rejected.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State respondent and perused the record.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that on 11.01.2022, on the basis of reliable sources, one truck bearing Regn. No.AS-22C-4377 loaded with cattle was coming from the Lakhimpur side, in violation of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, SI Abhijit Hazarika of Hawajan Police Out Post along with his staff, intercepted the vehicle and besides arresting four persons including the present petitioner No.1, recovered 31 numbers of cattle and also seized the vehicle.

¶16

Informing the incident, SI Abhijit Hazarika has lodged an FIR before the officer-in-charge of the Gohpur P.S., which was registered as the Gohpur P.S. Case No.06/2022, under Section 379 IPC, read with Section 13 of the Cattle Preservation Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act was registered.

¶17

On 11.01.2022, on production of the accused persons and reporting about the seizure etc., the learned SDJM (M), Gohpur, pertaining to connected G.R. Case No.07/2022, passed the following order:-

¶18

“Upon considering the prayer of the I.O., this Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, passes a direction that during the pendency of the litigation, the seized 31 nos. of cattle be housed at the Dhyan Foundation Goshala, Kawripather, as prayed for.

¶19

Furthermore, under Rule 5(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, the accused persons as well as owner of the cattle are accordingly directed to execute a bond of Rs.96,720/- with one local surety. The aforesaid

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

sum of Rs.96,720/- has been deduced from the Report of the Veterinary Officer, State Veterinary Hospital, Helem vide Memo No.SVH/Goshala/20-21/117 dated 17.12.21 as cost of maintenance and treatment of the cattle for one month for 31 nos. of cattle as required under the said provision of law.

¶22

The I.O. of the case is to ensure that the bond is executed within a period of 03 days from today and if the accused as well as the owner do not execute the bond, as per provision of the Rule 5(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, the animals shall be forfeited to the Goshala.

¶23

The I.O. of the case is also directed to take note for execution of additional bond of similar nature once 80% of the initial bond amount has been exhausted towards cost for carrying for the cattle.

¶24

Furnish a copy of this Order to the I.O. and all other concerned for necessary action”.

¶25

Subsequent thereto, on 28.02.2022, a zimma petition was filed by present two petitioners, seeking zimma of the seized cattle, on the ground that they have duly purchased the cattle vide Petition No.78/2022, wherein the Court passed the following order:

¶26

“…………………………..

¶27

As the accused persons have not executed a bond in term of Rule 5(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, which is quoted below:

¶28

“5. Execution of Bond.-(1) The magistrate when handing over the custody of animal to an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala, shall determine an amount which is sufficient to cover all reasonable cost incurred and anticipated to be incurred for transport, maintenance and treatment of the animal based on the input provided by the jurisdictional veterinary officer and shall direct the accused and the owner to execute a bond of the determined value with sureties within three days and if the accused and the owner do not execute the bond, the animal shall be forfeited to infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala,” as held vide order dated 11.01.2022, passed by this Court and as the 03 days time period in view of the aforesaid Rule has already lapsed, as such in my opinion, the seized animals, in view of the aforesaid Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 2017,

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

hereby stands forfeited to the Gaushala and being so, the zimma petition stands rejected”.

¶31

Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.02.2022, the present petition has been preferred.

¶32

The informant of the case objected to the present revision petition and also submitted a report.

¶33

As per the report, 29 numbers of cattle were carrying inside a truck bearing Regn. No.AS22C-4377, which were roped in tightly by their legs and neck and they could not move here and there inside the truck and neither food nor water was provided inside the truck. The persons who carried the cattle, were not local people and they have purchased the same to smuggle the same to neighbouring Bangladesh, via Mancachar. As per the Government circular, transportation of animals to other district is totally banned, whereas 29 numbers of cattle were transported in a LPT truck, by flouting the relevant provisions of Preservation of Cruelty to Animals Act.

¶34

As per the report, the SDJM (M), Gohpur, vide order dated 11.01.2022, directed the petitioners to execute a bond of Rs.96,720/- with one local surety, has been deduced from the report of the Veterinary Officer, as cost of maintenance and transportation of the cattle for one month, as require under the provisions of law, within a period of three days from the date of order, as per the provision of Rule 5(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, without which, the animals shall be forfeited to the Dhyan Foundation, Gosala.

¶35

The accused persons also filed a zimma petition, seeking zimma of the vehicle, which was also rejected vide order dated 28.02.2022, which is assailed in the present petition.

¶36

In view of the matters on record and the report from the I.O., it is a normal case of violation of Rules pertaining to Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 as well as the Transport of Animals Rules and a prima facie case of cruelty has been made out, where 29 numbers of cattle were carried in a single vehicle, without adhering to any Rules and Procedure towards such transportation of such cattle and the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶37

In a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.02.2020, in SLP

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

(Criminal No.11726/2019) Raguramsharma and Ors. v. C. Thulsi and Anr., for transporting the animals violating the norms and principles, the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking note Rule 56(c) of the Animals Rules, 1978 and other provisions of the Act was set aside the order of interim custody of the cattle given to accused person, with observations– “that the number of cattle were transported in a vehicle violating the norms and principles. Going by the allegations in the FIR, the accused were prima facie appears guilty of causing cruelty to animals. It is held that in such case interim custody of animals ought not to be handed over to the accused. If the accused are finally found to be not guilty than the issue of custody of animals will logically be dealt with in accordance with concerned rules or regulations. But at the stage, the accused are definitely not entitled to interim custody of the cattle.”

¶40

Accordingly the matter needs no interference and hence dismissed.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Hasar Ali and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasar Ali and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjoy Bora Vs the State of Assam

Md. Maraj Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Pranab Jyoti Hazarika Vs the State of Assam

Anu Bharali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Moynal Hoque Sk Vs the State of Assam

Gautam Singh Vs the State of Assam