Dismissed

Mainala Sammaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Mar 2011CRLRC/310/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the petitioners' challenge to an order refusing interim custody of 32 seized bulls. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents and held that due to serious allegations of inhuman transportation and a pending investigation, the lower court's order refusing custody was permissible and did not require interference.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed; there is no order as to costs. The impugned order refusing interim custody of the bulls remains.

Mainala Sammaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLESRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.310 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘the CrPC’, for brevity), by the petitioners, is filed against the order, dated 04.05.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.725 of 2021 in Cr.No.44 of 2021 of Echoda Police Station, Adilabad District, by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath, Adilabad, filed under Section 457 of the CrPC, seeking to grant interim custody of 32 bulls to the petitioners.

¶5

The petitioners herein are accused in the said crime. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the PCAA Act’) and Section 5 of the A.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the APPCSA Act’). The Police during the course of investigation in connection with Cr.No.44 of 2021 seized 32 bulls from the custody of the petitioners.

¶6

3 . Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.

¶7

4 . The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-

¶8

i) The petitioners herein claiming to be the owners of the said bulls, filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Court below vide Crl.M.P.No.725 of 2021 in Cr.No.44 of 2021 to release the said 32 bulls as interim custody to them. The said petition was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 04.05.2021. Therefore, the present petition to quash the said order.

¶9

MSRM, J CRLRC No.616 of 2017

¶10

¶11

ii) The petitioners herein have filed the above said petition seeking interim custody of the said bulls on the ground that they are the owners of the said bulls and they have purchased the same on 24.04.2021 and 26.04.2021. in proof of the same, they have filed the receipt issued by the Agricultural Marketing Committee, Adilabad. The Police taken custody of the said bulls and sent them to Goshala.

¶12

iii) According to the petitioners, only one crime i.e.Cr.No.44 of 2021 is pending on the file of the P.S. Echoda, against them. Even as per the Police, it is the first case. As per the provisions of the PCAA Act, the Police cannot confiscate the seized bulls where the accused involved in a case only once.

¶13

iv) With the said submissions, the petitioners herein sought to grant interim custody of the bulls to them.

¶14

v) The said petition was resisted by the State by filing counter contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are serious in nature. It is also contended that in the event of the release of the bulls, there is every possibility of the petitioners selling the same to the slaughter house.

¶15

vi) With the said submissions the State sought to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioners herein.

¶16

The learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.05.2021 dismissed the said petition on the ground that as per Section 29 of the PCAA Act, if the owner of any animal is found guilty of any offence under the Act, the Court, upon his conviction make an order that the animal with respect to which the offence was committed shall be forfeited to Government. The Court below

¶17

has also referred the principle laid down by the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mustakeem¹ wherein it is held that the interim custody of the cattle cannot

¶18

1 Crl.A.Nos.283-287 of 2002 (arising out of SLP(Crl)Nos.2790,2793,2795,2797,2800 of 1999)

¶19

MSRM, J CRLRC No.616 of 2017

¶20

¶21

be given to the owner when the offence was registered under the provisions of the PCAA Act. The learned Magistrate further held that 17 bulls were transporting in one vehicle and 15 bulls were transporting in another vehicle in inhuman manner without valid permit or without taking proper precautionary measures.

¶22

Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court and also the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioners herein have involved in only one case and therefore there is no question of confiscation of the said bulls seized from the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have purchased the same by spending huge money.

¶23

With the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sought to quash the order impugned herein and to release the bulls. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon by the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd.Fayyaz Vs. PP, Hyd.² , Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat³ , Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar Vs. Chakram Moraji Nai⁴ Ghanshyam Yadav Vs. State of UP⁵ , Amra Banjara Vs. State of M.P.⁶ , and Dattatraya Joshi Vs. PP.Hyd⁷ .

¶24

Learner Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the Court below rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners by referring to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the provisions of the PCAA Act and there is no error in it.

¶25

2 2015 Law Suit(Hyd) 142

¶26

3 (2002) 10 SCC 283

¶27

4 1998 AIR (SC) 2769

¶28

5 2018 Law Suit(All) 4411

¶29

6 M.Cr.C.No.3735 of 2015

¶30

7 Law Suit(Hyd) 558

¶31

MSRM, J CRLRC No.616 of 2017

¶32

¶33

A perusal of the above stated facts would reveal that in present Cr.No.44 of 2021, the allegations levelled against them are that the petitioners have tied the bulls tightly i.e. 15 bulls in one vehicle and 17 bulls in another vehicle with ropes in a cruel manner and transporting the same. The said transportation of the bulls in the said manner is in violation of the provisions of the PCAA Act and also Section 5 of the APPCSA Act.

¶34

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) categorically held that the Courts have to release or give interim custody of the seized property/vehicles to the owners and keeping the seized vehicles or property in police stations or Courts will not serve any purpose.

¶35

In Mohd.Fayyaz (supra) wherein the erstwhile combined High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, referring to the Principle in Mohd.Moinuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh⁸ and in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar (supra) , held that the 14 oxen seized were to be given to the owners for interim custody on certain conditions and the said principle was also held in Ghanshyam Yadav Vs. State of UP⁹

¶36

In Mustakeem( supra), the Apex Court referring to the facts of the case, categorically held that the allegations were transportation of animals for the purpose of slaughtering. The First Information Report was registered for violation of the provisions of the PCAA Act, there was specific mention in the said First Information Report that animals were transported for being slaughtered. The animals were tied tightly to each other. The criminal case is still pending. On an appeal for getting the custody of the animals was filed and the impugned order has been passed. The order passed by the High Court to release the animals in such circumstances is illegal. In the said case, it is also held that there are serious allegations

¶37

8 (2010) 2 ALD(Crl)682,

¶38

9 2018 Law Suit(All) 4411

¶39

MSRM, J CRLRC No.616 of 2017

¶40

¶41

against the accused and the accused may face criminal trial for the said allegations. With the said findings, the Hon’ble Apex Court, set aside the order passed by the High Court granting release of the animals for interim custody and the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that the animals shall be kept in Goshala and the State Government undertake to take the entire responsibility of the preservation of those animals so long as the matter is under trial.

¶42

In view of the said principle, coming to the case on hand, it is also relevant to note that the Police have seized the bulls, kept the same in Goshala for safe custody. Admittedly, the petitioners herein did not make the Goshala as a party to the present petition. There are serious allegations against the petitioners herein and in the present crime, investigation is still pending.

¶43

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mustakeem (supra), the principles laid down in Amra Banjara Vs. State of M.P.¹⁰ , Ramavath Hanuma @ Hanumanth Vs. State of Telangana¹¹ relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present case. Thus, the petitioners herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the order impugned herein, passed by the Court below.

¶44

It is relevant to note that the Court below has referred Section 25 of the PCAA Act, and also the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mustakeem (supra). The Court below has also considered the material available on record and came to a prima facie conclusion that the petitioners are transporting 17 bulls in one vehicle and 15 bulls in other vehicle in inhuman manner without valid permit and without taking proper

¶45

10 M.Cr.C.No.3735 of 2015 11

¶46

MSRM, J CRLRC No.616 of 2017

¶47

¶48

precautionary measures. Therefore, according to this Court, the impugned order herein is a reasoned order and it does not require interference of this Court and the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

16 ) Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed.

¶51

____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

¶52

Date:14.06.2021. vvr

Mainala Sammaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mainala Sammaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Dharma Reddy Raghunandana Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

M/s Prestec Laboratories Ltd., Vs Y.Kondala Rao

Smt. Thummalapalli Bramarambha Vs The State

Rama Chandra Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhuma Venkanna , Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bolisetti Madan Mohan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh