Dismissed

Chinni Durga Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2021CRLP/310/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Telangana High Court dismissed a petition seeking interim custody of 32 seized bulls. The court distinguished prior precedents granting custody, ruling that serious allegations of inhuman transport and intent to slaughter under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act justified retention in Goshala pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of 32 bulls to petitioners denied; criminal revision dismissed. Animals remain in Goshala custody.

Chinni Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR.THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

r/oll?tyr THE FOURTEENTH DAy oF JUNE TWo rHousAND AND rwerrrrv or-J''-

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIM INAL R EVISIONCASE NO: 310 OF 2021

¶6

criminar Revision case fired Under Sections 397 and 401 0f cr.p.c against the order made in crr'M p No. 725 0t 2a21 in cr.No. 44 0f 2021 , dated.04.05.2021 0f Police station rchoda, Adirabad District, on the fire of the court of the Judiciar Magistrate of First Class at Boath, Adilabad District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Kalim Kasim Khureslri,_.g{C. Khureshi, Age.32 years, Occ.Agricutture, F/o. H.No.i069, tdgah Gaili,'Aitoti, Nanded-Oiltiiti.^"

¶9

salim Khureshi@ sareem Nabi, S/o. Nabi sab@ Nabisab Khureshi, Aqed. '^{ir rvr vvr r'|} '^{rvu</sup> 37 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. New peth tManlarimlll;;J;.-}

¶10

. Petitioners/Owner of the Bulls

¶11

AND

¶12

The state of relangana, through s.H.o., police Station lchoda, Adilabad District, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 725 of 2021, in Cr.No. 44 of 2021, of Police Station lchoda, Adilabad District, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Boath, Adilabad District, dated. 04.05.2021, thereby release the 32 bulls in favour of the petitioners.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K. VENUMADHAV

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON,BLESRI^{JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN} IN R I E f 2

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Thls Criminal^{Revision Case,underSections397 and 401 of the Code} of Criminal^{Procedure, 1973, ('theCrPC', 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 2O2l of Echoda^{Police Station, Adilabad District, by the} learned Judicial lvlagistrate of^{First Class, Boath,Adilabad,filed underSection} 457 of the CrPC, seeking to^grant interim custody of 32^bulls to^the petitioners.

¶22

2, 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 Acl, 1977 (for short, 'the APPCSA Act'). The Police during the course of investigation in connection with Cr,No.44 of 2027 seized 32 bulls from the custody of the petitioners.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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 20zr to release the said 32 bulls as interim custody to them, The said petition was dismissed by the court below vide order dated 04.05.202r. Therefore, the present petition to quash the t {^saldorder.

¶26

) CRLRC No.6t6 of )0t 7

¶27

¶28

ii) The petitioners herein have fired the above said petition seeking interim custody of the said bu,s 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 bv the Agriculturar Marketing Committee, Adirabad. The police taken custody of the said bulls and sent them to Goshala.

¶29

¶30

iii) According to the petitioners, onry one crime i.e.cr.No .44 of 2o2r is pending on the file of the p.s. Echoda, against them. Even as per the porice, 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.

¶31

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

¶32

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 ls 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.

¶33

vi) With the said submissions the State sought^{to dismiss the petition} filed by the petitioners herein,

¶34

The learned Magistrate^{vide orderdated 04.05'2021 dismissed the} said petition on the^{groundthat as per Section29 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 orderthat the animal with respect to which the} offence was committed^{shall be forfeitedto Government.The court below} has also referred the^{principlelaid downby the state of UttarPradesh vs.} Mustakeeml wherein^{it is held that the interim custody of the cattle cannot}

¶35

1 Crl.A,Nos.283-287 of 2Oo2 (arising out of S LP( Crl ) N os. 27^{9 0,279 3,779 5, 27 97,2800 of1 999)}

¶36

t s^,rr,^J CRLRC^{No.6t6 o!20t?}

I /

be^{given to the ownerwhen the offence was registered under the provisions} of the^{pcAA Act.The learnedMagistratefuther herd that 17 bullswere} transpofting^{ln one vehicleand 15 bulls were transportingin anothervehicle} in inhuman^{manner wlthout valldpermit or withouttaking proper} precautionary^measures'

¶41

Sri^{K.Venu Madhav' learned counselfor the petitioners would} submit that^{the impugned orderis contraryto the principleslaid down by this} Court and^{also the Hon'ble Apex Court'Thepetitionersherein haveinvolved} in only one^{case andtherefore there is no questionof confiscation of the said} bulls seized^{from the petitioners'Learned counselfor the petitloners would} submit that^{the petitioners have purchasedthe same by spendinghuge} money.

¶42

With the said^{contentions,the learned counsel for the petitioners'} soughttoquashtheorderimpugnedhereinandtoreleasethebulls.Learned counsel for the^{petitioners has also relled 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^{Naia GhanshyamYadav Vs' State of UPs, Amra} Banjara vs. State of^{M.P.6,and Dattatraya loshi Vs' PP'Hyd7'}

¶43

B)LearnerPublicProsecutor,oninstructions,wouldsubmitthatthe court below rightly^{dismissed the applicationfiled by the petitionersby} referring to the^{principles laiddown by the Hon'ble Apex couft and also the} provisions of the PCAA Act and^{there is no error in it'}

¶44

2 2015 Law suit(Hyd) 142

¶45

3 (zoo2) 10 scc 283

¶46

o 1998 AIR (sc) 2769

¶47

'2018^{LawSuit(All)4411}

¶48

'^{M.6kc"No.3735of 2015} I Law Su it(Hyd ) 558

¶49

4 usau. t <RlRclo'6toor

¶50

A perusar of the :rr.,,,^ above stated Facts w ou " outd reveat that in presenr cr.No.44 of 202r,,n. ,,,.",*,^,.1^'", ::t" allegations tevelied against them are that the petit'ioners have tied the bur/s tightly i.e. 15 buils in one vehrcre and 17 burs in another vehicre with ropes in a cruer manner and transporting the same, The said transpo(ation of the bulrs in the sard manner is in violation of the provisions of the pCAA Act and also Section 5 of the AppCSA Act.

¶51

The Hon,ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) categorica'y herd that the courts have to rerease 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.

¶52

In Mohd.Fayyaz (supra) wherein the erstwhire combined High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra pradesh, referring to the Principle in Mohd.Moinuddin Vs. State of Andhra pradeshs and in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar (supra), held that the 14 oxen seized were to be given to the owners for interim custody on ceftain conditions and the said principre was arso herd in Ghanshyam yadav vs. state of upe

¶53

in Mustakeem(supra), the Apex Court referring to the facts of the case, categoricaily herd that the ailegations 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 animars were transported for being slaughtered. The animars were tied tighfly to each other. The criminal case is stiil pending. on an appear for getting the custody of the animals was filed and the impugned order has been passed. The order passed by the High court to rerease the animars in such circumstances is illegal. In the said case, it is arso herd that there are serious ailegations

¶54

81zoro1 2 ALD(crt)682,

¶55

'2018 Law Suit(Att) 4411

I t

I )

(ALRC to()16of2011

against the^{accusedand the accused mayface criminaltrial for the said} allegations.^{With the said findings,the Hon'ble Apex Court'set aside the} orderpassedbytheHighCourtgrantingreleaseoftheanimalsforinterim custody and the Hon'ble^{Apex court directedthat the animals shall be keptin} Goshala and the State^{Government undertaketo take the entire} responsibility of the^preservation of those^{animalsso long as the matter is} under trial.

¶61

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.

¶62

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 Telanganall 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.

¶63

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

¶64

'^{\1.('r(' No.:715 ot'2itI 5}

¶65

¶66

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.

¶67

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

¶68

Miscerraneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminar Revision case, shall stand closed.

¶69

SD/. CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Station House Officer,lchoda, police Station, Adilabad District. 32. . Two CCs to The Judiciat the IMagistrate public prosecutor, of First Ctass, High Court ,l e"rth, ior ifre ijiLbad State of Telangana, District. at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶74