Delhi District Court
Sapna Singh vs The State Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUL VARMA, ASJ-04 AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH-EAST: SAKET COURTS: NEW
DELHI
Cr Rev 615/2023
Sapna Singh
D/o Sh. K.K Manchanda
R/o B-81 2nd floor
Greater Kailash, Part-I
New Delhi -48
..........Revisionist
Vs.
1. STATE (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
2. D.S.P.C.A
Through its Secretary/Chairperson
Boulevard, Road, OPP Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through Its Commissioner,
Department of Veterinary Services
South Zone, Room No 15, Ground Floor
Zonal Building, Aurobindo Marg
New Delhi-110016
...........Respondents
Instituted on : 14.10.2023
Argued on : 30.10.2023
Decided on : 30.10.2023
ORDER
1. Vide this order, this Court shall adjudicate the Criminal Revision filed by revisionist seeking to set aside impugned order dated 21.09.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court, whereby the Ld. MM allowed the MCD and Delhi CR 615/2023 Sapna Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi Page No. 1/8 SPCA to immunize and sterilize dogs belonging to the revisionist.
IMPUGNED ORDER FACTS
2. The facts of the case are hereby succinctly recapitulated: On the complaint of one B.K Sinha and other residents of B-81, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, an FIR no 0070/2023 u/s 269/291 IPC was registered qua the revisionist herein. An allegation was made that the revisionist Sapna Singh has 08-10 dogs confined in her flat, and she is perpetrating cruelty upon them. It was alleged that she throws the dog's faeces on the common staircase shared with other residents, which poses a health hazard as such unhygienic conditions may result in spread of dangerous diseases. As per the record, inspections by the Veterinary Services Department, South Zone, MCD were conducted on 07.03.2023, 11.03.2023 and 13.03.2023 wherein it was observed that faeces and urine of dogs was scattered all over the common staircase and common areas of the building premises. It was alleged that the revisionist did not allow the MCD team to inspect her premises.
3. Thereafter, on 09.03.2023, and 10.03.2023, she was prosecuted by the Sanitary and Veterinary Inspectors u/s 357, 397 and 399 Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, and she was asked to remove her dogs. A notice dated 11.04.2023, was also served upon her, however, she refused to remove the dogs.
CR 615/2023 Sapna Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi Page No. 2/8
4. Finally, on 15.04.2023, at the directions of the Director Animal Husbandry cum Secretary, Delhi SPCA, the Veterinary Services Department alongwith the enforcement team of Delhi SPCA and police reached the spot for the purposes of inspection and rescue of dogs. However, the revisionist Sapna Singh did not allow the team to enter the premises and therefore no inspection could take place. It is under these circumstances that the FIR came to be registered and pursuant thereto the said dogs were rescued and were sent to the infirmary viz. SPCA, and are housed there since then. To release the dogs back to her, the revisionist Sapna Singh has preferred and application before the Ld. Trial Court which is pending adjudication.
`FINDINGS OF THE LD TRIAL COURT
5. Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 21.09.2023, while hearing the application for release of dogs, directed the MCD and SPCA to ensure that the dogs are immunized and sterilized as per rules. The present Revision Petition has been filed assailing this very order. CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSELS FOR REVISIONIST & RESPONDENT
6. Ld. Counsel for revisionist submitted that an order directing the SPCA and MCD to immunize as well as sterilize the dogs ought not to have been passed by the Ld. Trial Court while adjudicating the application for release of the dogs. It was further submitted that already 3 dogs have died CR 615/2023 Sapna Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi Page No. 3/8 in the custody of MCD/SPCA, and the revisionist has an apprehension that harm may be caused to the remaining dogs.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Delhi SPCA had responded that the dogs have been partially immunized, they have been given anti rabies injections and they are fit to be released/discharged from the infirmary. The Ld Counsel for the MCD had submitted that they are willing to sterilize the dogs as per the directions of the Ld. Trial Court. However, Ld Counsel disputed the factum of ownership of the dogs, and submitted that the dogs were street dogs and not pet dogs. The police, in its reply has opposed the release of dogs citing reasons of cruelty meted out by the revisionist herein.
8. Submissions heard.
DECISION
9. At this juncture, it would be apposite to peruse the Rule 8 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 which were enforced w.e.f 10.03.2023:
"8. Responsibility for Vaccination and Sterilisation:- (1) In case of pet animals, the owner of the animal shall be responsible for the deworming, immunisation and sterilisation.
(2) In case of street animals, the local authority shall be responsible for dewarming, immunisation and sterilisation and may engage an Animal Welfare Organisation duly recognised by the Board to carry out the animal birth control program in accordance with these rules."
10. The said Rules also classify animals as pet animals or street dogs. Pet animals are those dogs which are owned and kept indoors by individuals. CR 615/2023 Sapna Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi Page No. 4/8 As per the definition of owner in 2 (o) of the said Rules, the 'owner' of an animal includes a person who was in possession thereof. It is not in dispute that the revisionist Sapna Singh was in possession of the dogs herein and this fact is corroborated by the fact that the said dogs were rescued from her premises. If that be so the case, then as per Rule 8, it is the responsibility of the owner i.e. the revisionist to get the dogs sterilized and immunized. Thus, the MCD or the Delhi SPCA cannot be directed to get the dogs sterilized as it is not a case where the dogs were street or stray dogs. In short, the ambit of duties of the MCD or Delhi SPCA is circumscribed only qua street dogs
11. During the course of arguments, the issue of ownership of the dogs were raised. It was also brought to the fore that the revisionist herein is in possession of certificates of registration qua the dogs issued by the MCD. In this regard, doctor Sneha Arya from the MCD had submitted that the revisionist has obtained the said certificates by concealing certain facts and the said certificates of registration will be cancelled. This contention has no bearing at this juncture inasmuch as, for the time being, the revisionist shall be deemed to be the owner as she was in possession of the dogs, and they were in her custody. Moreover, in the first place, the MCD has no business to issue certificates of registration of pet dogs without due diligence and without proper verification. This practice of issuing certificates of registration and then cancelling them is an exercise CR 615/2023 Sapna Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi Page No. 5/8 in futility, and the MCD would well do to first conduct a verification exercise before handing out such certificates.
12. Be that as it may, at this juncture, since allegations of cruelty to animals have also been levelled qua the revisionist, and there is a reasonable ground for suspecting that such offence has been committed as per Section 73 (1) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, it would be appropriate to peruse Section 74 of the Delhi Police Act, which elucidates upon the power of Magistrate to release an animal to the person from whose possession it was taken.
"Section 74 Powers of Metropolitan Magistrate to return animal to person from whose possession it was taken. When the animal is brought before a Metropolitan Magistrate under section 73, the Magistrate may direct the animal to be returned to the person from whose possession it was taken on such person giving security to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Magistrate binding himself to produce the animal when required or may direct that the animal shall be sent for treatment and care to an infirmary and be detained there as provided in section 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960) or may make such order as he thinks fit regarding the disposal or custody or production of the animal."
13. The words 'treatment and care' assume significance, and at the most, the Ld. Magistrate could have directed the dogs to be immunized for their treatment and care. However, direction for the dogs to be sterilized falls beyond the scope of the powers vested to the Ld Magistrate of Section 74 of Delhi Police Act, or any other law. Even as per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) CR 615/2023 Sapna Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi Page No. 6/8 Rules, 2017, the Ld Magistrate cannot pass any such directions for sterilization. In this context, Rule 3 thereof is reproduced hereunder:
"3. Custody of animals pending litigation- When an animal has been seized under the provision of Act or the rules made thereunder-
(a) the authority seizing the animal shall ensure health inspection, identification, and marking such animal, through the jurisdictional veterinary officer deployed at Government Veterinary Hospital of the area and marking may be done by ear tagging or by chipping or by any less irksome advance technology but marking by hot branding cold branding and other injurious marking shall be prohibited;
(b) the magistrate may direct the animal to be housed at any infirmary pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala during the pendency of the litigation."
14. In other words, a Magistrate is not empowered to direct sterilization of pet dogs as a precondition to the release thereof to their owner.
CONCLUSION
15. Ergo, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court deems it fit to allow the revision petition and the impugned order whereby the Ld Trial Court directed to sterilize the dogs is hereby set aside. Ld. Trial Court is requested to expeditiously adjudicate upon the application for release as per law and if required, factor into account Section 74 of Delhi Police Act as well as the mandate of Dr Maya D. Chablani Vs Radha Mittal & Ors I.A No 4164/2021 In CS(OS) 277/2020, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
16.TCR, if any, alongwith copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for CR 615/2023 Sapna Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi Page No. 7/8 necessary information/ compliance.
17.Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
18. Order be uploaded on official website of District Courts.
19. Copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner MCD, South Zone, to deliberate on observations made in Para 11 of this order.
20.Copy of this order be given dasti to all parties. Announced in the open court on 30th October, 2023 (ARUL VARMA) ASJ-04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South-East District Saket Courts, New Delhi CR 615/2023 Sapna Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi Page No. 8/8