Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandan Prakash @ Chandan Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
(Chandan Prakash & others Vs. The State of M.P.)
M.Cr.C. No. 9252/2009
JABALPUR, DATED: 28/06/2018
Shri J.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ramji Pandey, learned P.L. for respondent/State.
This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.2597/2008 pending before the learned CJM, Katni for offence under Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicle Act and sections 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act.
The facts of the case in brief is that, in the night on 3.6.2008 at about 9.30 pm information has received in the by pass road, truck No.CPT-2723 that carrying cattle from Uttar Pradesh to Chhattishgarh through Katni. When the truck was intercepted and checked, 23 cattle were being tied inside the truck and without any fodder, they were being transported causing cruelty to the animals. There was no valid papers for transportation of the cattle. The condition of the permit was also violated. Therefore, offence under Sections 66/192 of the Motor Vehicle Act and sections 4,6,9 and 11 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 has been contravened. Subsequently, during the investigation it was observed that, the said cattle was being carried the slaughter house. The petitioners were not having proper licence to carry the cattle.
On behalf of the petitioners, Chandan Vishwakarma and Babu Vishwakarma and the owner of the truck Smt. Asha Devi Vishwakarma have filed this petition for quashing the proceeding and the order dated 14.8.2008 whereby, cognizance has been taken by the learned CJM, Katni against the petitioners.
It is claimed that, 23 number of calves were being taken from Uttar Pradesh to Chhattisgarh but no evidence has been produced that the animals were transported for slaughter. Offence under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 are not applicable. The petitioners are compelled to face the trial which is bad in the eyes of law and for the interest of justice, the same is requested to be quashed.
Section 4 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004(in brief MPGVP Act, 2004) provides that, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter or any cow progeny by any means.
The offence is punishable under Section 9(1) of the Act, 2009 which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and with fine.
Section 6 of the Act, prohibits on transportation of cow progeny for slaughter within the state or outside the state for the purpose of slaughtering in contravention of the provisions of this Act. The penalty for this is provide under Section 9(2) is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine.
Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 provides for taking animals cruelly is punishable with fine.
The accused persons could not provide any bills or receipts of purchase of the cattle and were not in possession of any licence or other documents which would go to show that the accused persons were the bonafide purchasers or are not transporting the cattle for slaughtering. Under section 13(a) of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 the burden of proof that the accused had not committed the offence under the provisions of this Act, is on the accused, if the prosecution is in a position to produce the prima facie evidence against him at the first instance.
When the calves were seized the accused persons under obligation to show that, they are the bonafide possession of calves and the same was not being transported for slaughtering.
Keeping in the above circumstances, it can be said that, the prima facie evidence discloses commission of alleged offence. Hence, the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not embark upon any enquiry whether the allegation in the FIR and charge sheet are reliable or not. These are matters, with can be examined only by the Court concerned after the entire materials is produced.
For the above reasons, this application is dismissed.
(Sushil Kumar Palo) Judge SM Digitally signed by SARSWATI MEHRA Date: 2018.07.02 13:32:09 -07'00'