Sri Kisar Ahamad Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.11,4,5 OF THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER AND CATTLE PREVENTION ACT, 1964 IN CR.NO.122/2019 AND C.C.NO.617/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC COURT AT HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.617/2020, on the file of Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar, for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act of 1964 ('Act' for short) arising out of Cr.No.122/2019 of Harihara Town PS.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37610 CRL.P No. 7060 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

In support of the petition, petitioners have contended that the allegations made in the charge sheet are false. They are innocent of the offences alleged. Section 4 of the Act prohibits slaughter of cow and calf of she buffalo. Section 5 of the Act prohibits slaughter of animal without certificate from the competent authority. Section 11 deals with penalties. However, there is no evidence to show that petitioners were involved in slaughter of cow or calves of she buffalo or any other animals without the certificate from competent authority. Petitioners are the owners and drivers of the vehicle hired by CW-17 to transport skins and hides of cows to the State of Tamil Nadu. At no point of time they are involved in the act of slaughtering cows or any animals. In fact CW-17 has received the hides as per the order of the trial Court. As a merchant in hide, CW-17 was in lawful custody of the skins and hides of the cows.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37610 CRL.P No. 7060 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

2.1 In fact the Assistant Director, Department of

¶38

Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences was not in a position to give report regarding the time since death of the said animals and whether they were killed or died a natural death, without actually examining the body to which the hide belongs. The concerned police being influenced by the Vice President of Bhajarandal has registered a false case against the petitioners. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.

¶39

On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1/State would submit that on 06.08.2019, respondent No.2 Dinesh lodged a complaint stating that around 12.00 noon when

¶40

he was proceeding on the road, he came across a 12 wheel lorry bearing registration No.TN-23/CL-3367. Since, foul smell was coming, they stopped the vehicle and found that hides were being transported. They intimated the concerned police. Thereafter a TATA ACE vehicle No.KA-

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37610 CRL.P No. 7060 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

17/D-5470 also came in which also hides were being

¶44

transported. Suspecting slaughter of the cows, he has given complaint. Based on it, the concerned police have registered case in Cr.No.122/2019 and after conducting

¶45

detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed. It makes out a strong prima facie case. Matter requires a detailed trial and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶46

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶47

Thus, petitioners who are arranged as accused

¶48

Nos.1 and 2 are seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings contending that as requested by CW-17, they were transporting hides of cows and buffalos and they are not involved in their slaughter. The provisions of Act only prohibits slaughtering of the cows and claves of the she buffalos and not transporting their hides. In fact the Assistant Director, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences on examination of the hides has given opinion that without the dead body, he is not in a position

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:37610 CRL.P No. 7060 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

to say when the animals were slaughtered and whether

¶53

they have died a natural death.

¶54

As rightly urged by the learned counsel for petitioners Section 4 of the Act prohibits slaughter of cow and calf of she buffalo and Section 5 of the Act prohibits slaughter of animals without certificate from the competent authority. Section 7 of the Act punishes slaughter of the animals in a place other than place specified by the competent authority. Section 11 deals with the penalties. The Act does not prohibit transportation of hides of the animals. The Assistant Director, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, on examination of the hides is not in a position to say whether the animals of whose hides were transported, were slaughtered or have died natural death. Such being the case, no purpose would serve by conducting trial against the petitioners to give it a logical end and consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:37610 CRL.P No. 7060 of 2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.

¶61

(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.617/2020, on the file of Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar, for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act of 1964, arising out of Cr.No.122/2019 of Harihara Town PS is hereby quashed.

¶62

(iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail.

¶63

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶64

RR

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri Kisar Ahamad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kisar Ahamad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tejas @ Kariya Vs State by

Chandrappa. H.Y Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Prashanth, Vs Sri.v. Sridhar Babu v

Syed Mubarak Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Amrit Paul-Ips, Vs State by High Ground P.S.

Shri Alok Chandrashekhar Vs State of Karnataka