Delhi District Court
In Re vs State on 21 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 121/2020
CNR No. DLWT01-003083-2020
In re:
Ambika Shukla
Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre
Near Shivaji College, Raja Garden
New Delhi-110027. ...... Petitioner/revisionist
Versus
1. State
2. Israt
S/o Sh. Akhtar
R/o Jhuggi No.4, Jwala Heri,
Miyan Wali Nagar,
Delhi
3. Jatin Gulati
(Address not know to the petitioner) ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.08.2020
Date of hearing arguments : 14.09.2020
Date of order : 21.09.2020
Appearances:
Sh. Abhishek Kumar Pathak and Sh. Aditya Chopra, Advocates for the
petitioner/ revisionist.
Sh. Atul Kumar Shrivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/R-1.
Sh. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
None for the owner/respondent no. 3 Shri Jatin Gulati.
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Crl. Rev. 121/20 Ambika Shukla v. State & Anr. Page 1 of 6 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioner/revisionist claiming himself to be a Trustee of Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'SGACC'), which concern is stated to be registered with Animal Welfare Organization recognized by Animal Welfare Board of India and involved in the care and treatment of injured animals. The SGACC assails an order dated 29.07.2020 passed by Ld. Duty MM, West, THC, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner/revisionist claims that on 26.07.2020 the petitioner/revisionist was on her way to the SGACC when she saw a vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LAC-2112 parked near its office and stuffed with hens/poultry in a very cruel and inhuman condition; and that an information was given to the Police, which registered a complaint bearing Kalandra/DD No.31A/20 PS Rajouri Garden dated 26.07.2020 against the respondent No.2. It is stated that animals were produced before the Ld. Duty MM, who vide order dated 26.07.2020 directed the flock of chickens/hens to be deposited with SGACC. It is also stated that on preliminary examination, the animals were found dehydrated, dull, overcrowded, having severed diahorrea, injuries all over the body, fracture of limbs, necks etc. and hypothermia; and that despite best medical supervision, 4 hens out of 335 chickens/ hens' birds succumbed to the injuries on the same day. It is stated that on 29.07.2020, the followed order was passed by the learned Duty MM:-
"Present: Ld. APP for the State Sh. G.D. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicant in person.
This order shall dispose of the application seeking release of 335 poultry/hens (Murgas) to the applicant.
Crl. Rev. 121/20 Ambika Shukla v. State & Anr. Page 2 of 6IO in his reply has submitted that vehicle no. DL- 1LAC-2112 was seized alongwith 335 hens during investigation and the vehicle was released on superdari by the order of Ld. Court but the hens were deposited in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Rajouri Garden. It is further mentioned that as per information received from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital four hens has expired and IO has also no objection qua the release of hens.
In view of the no objection, the hens/poultry are directed to be released to the applicant against proper receipt and identification. Photographs of the hens/ poultry be taken and placed on record. Application stands disposed of.
Copy of order be given dasti to the applicant and be also sent to SHO.
Sd/-
Deepika Thakran Duty MM-1, West Dist, THC, Delhi 29.07.2020"
3. The grievance of the petitioner/revisionist is that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner contrary to the spirit of Section 35 of the Prevention of th Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCA Act') and the Rules framed therein. Reference is invited to Section 11 of the PCA Act and Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicles Act (11th Amendment) Rules 2015 in canvassing the plea that the impugned order is incorrect in law. Reference is made to a decision in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 and State of UP v. Mustakeem & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 283-287 of 2002 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22nd February, 2002.
4. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent No.2 and written submissions are filed challenging the present revision petition on behalf of respondent no. 2. Notice was also issued to the owner of the chickens/ hens' birds, namely Sh. Jatin Gulati but no one Crl. Rev. 121/20 Ambika Shukla v. State & Anr. Page 3 of 6 appears on his behalf.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/revisionist, Addl. PP for the State as also Sh. G.D. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 through Video Conferencing and on perusal of the record, I find that the present revision petition is not maintainable. As per the report of the Investigating Officer ASI Sanjay Kumar No. 2483/W, PS Rajouri Garden dated 27.08.2020, the order dated 29.07.2020 was not complied by the SGACC when the same was served upon it on 31.07.2020. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 pointed out that when chickens/ hens birds were not released, the owner Jatin Gulati filed an application, consequently an order dated 04.08.2020 was passed by the Court of Sh. Abhinav Pandey, Ld Duty MM-01, West, THC, Delhi, which goes as under:-
"04.08.2020 Present: Sh.G.D. Sharma , Id. counsel for the applicant alongwith applicant.
Report has been received from SGACC which is reportedly a private trust, stating that on 26.07,2020, when the hens were deposited, they were suffering flow dehydration, depression, Diarrhea, low temperature, anemia and were injured. It has been been stated that the animals are still not fit and healthy and are under medical treatment. Neither the medical record or the day when the hens were deposited has been annexed with the application nor any details have been provided regarding the torrent state of the fitness of the hens apart from a mere statement that they are not healthy and not fit to travel and therefore, are not being released in compliance of Section 35 (3) of the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960.
As per Section 35 (3) of the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, in cases other then those only in which direction for release is given by the Magistrate, can the infirmary decide not to release the animal except upon a certificate a fitness for discharge issued by the Veterinary Officer in-charge of the Crl. Rev. 121/20 Ambika Shukla v. State & Anr. Page 4 of 6 area. First of all, SGACC is not argued to be a Stare government appointed infirmary as per the provision of Section 35(1) of the Act or any SPCA constituted under Rule 3 of Prevention of Cruelty to animals (Establishment and Regulation of Society for Prevention of Cruelly to Animals), Rule 2001. Secondly, the said establishment need not have applied its mind to refuse the release once the concerned Ld. Duty Magistrate on 29.07.2020 had categorically directed release the hens and this act of not releasing hens despite the order of the Magistrate falls within the ambit of Section 188 of IPC for which the Ld. Duty Magistrate who passed the order on 29.07.2020 and the undersigned passing the order today would be empowered in law to take action in case the hens are not released immediately after inspection by the veterinary Officer In-charge of the area. IO is directed to get the hens examined in SGACC itself by the Veterinary Officer In-charge of the area. Copy of the order be given dasti to the Id. counsel.
Sd/-
Duty MM-1:West:THC:Delhi 04.08.2020"
6. Interestingly, the ld. Counsel for the petitioner/revisionist showed his ignorance about passing of such order. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order dated 04.08.2020 would show that the Ld. Court took note of the report by the IO regarding medical condition of the chickens/hens birds and due process of law was followed, and ultimately on 07.08.2020 the SGACC released 275 chickens/hens' birds to the rightful owner Sh. Jatin Gulati since about sixty birds had died on different dates, which speaks volume of the fact that the SGACC had no facility to take proper care and custody of the seized animal live stock. It is manifest that the petitioner/revisionist has not approached the Court with clean hands and chose to file this revision petition on 07.08.2020 despite the fact that the order dated 04.08.2020 had been complied with.
Crl. Rev. 121/20 Ambika Shukla v. State & Anr. Page 5 of 67. Further more, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/revisionist is unable to demonstrate any illegality or incorrect approach adopted by the the Ld. MM in passing the impugned order dated 04.08.2020. The only solace to the petitioner/revisionist should be that the matter in issue on criminal complaint has to be proceeded d in a summary manner, and therefore, the ld. Trial Court should be directed to take up the matter and dispose off the same as per law, as expeditiously as possible notwithstanding the pandemic situation. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the case law has no bearing in this case since the SGACC is not a government appointed infirmary as per the provisions of section 35(1) of the PCA Act. Lastly, whether or not Rule 125E(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was being complied with is also a matter of trial.
8. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to any expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Ld. Trial court shall proceed to decide the criminal complaint in a summary manner as expeditiously as possible. A copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial Court for information and compliance. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by DHARMESH DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.09.24 16:26:04 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) st on 21 September, 2020 Principal District & Sessions Judge (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi Crl. Rev. 121/20 Ambika Shukla v. State & Anr. Page 6 of 6