Gujarat High Court
Vachnaram Lakharam vs State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8789/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 8789 of 2025
==========================================================
VACHNARAM LAKHARAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MB RANA(2760) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
RULE. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
[1.0] The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so also inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to release the cattle i.e 194 goats seized in connection with the offence being FIR being C.R. No. 11195035250217 of 2025 came to be registered with Palanpur Taluka Police Station, Banaskantha, for the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
[2.0] The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is doing animal husbandry and as there was no suffice food and water available in the petitioner's village, he was transporting his cattle in State of Gujarat for more than six months in a year and therefore, he had hired truck in order to come back to his village and while taking his cattle back, the vehicle was intercepted and cattle were seized and handed over the custody to Panjara Pole. During this period, 14 animals died in Panjara Pole.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:51:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8789/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
[3.0] Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents.
[4.0] Learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged that this Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It can also take into account the ratio laid down in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court lamented the scenario of number of muddamal having been kept unattended and becoming junk within the police station premises.
[5.0] Learned APP for the respondent has objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and urged that of course, powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the muddamal can be exercised at any time, whenever the Court deems it appropriate but this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction and hence, requested to dismiss the petition. Further, there is no proof of ownership of the cattle and if the same are released in favour of the petitioner, then once again there is possibility to cause cruelty with them. Therefore, it is expedient to keep the custody of the cattle with Panjarapole or any other welfare organization. Hence, on this ground alone, petition deserves to be dismissed.
[6.0] It appears that in the present case, Section 6(A) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, is also involved. There is no presumption that the cattle was transporting for slaughtering purposes. It further appears that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as well as this Court itself, has time and again directed the police authority to verify whether proceedings of confiscation have commenced or not. The Court also warned the Investigating Officer that non-observance of this order shall be viewed seriously. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned APP under the instructions states that no confiscation proceedings are initiated Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:51:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8789/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined till date. Further, the petitioner has produced on record vaccination certificate issued by the Veterinary Hospital, Shihori District, in which, 100 cattle are on the name of the petitioner and remaining are on the name of the wife of the petitioner. Therefore, the Court has no option but to release the cattle. Further, the petitioner is a member of the Milk Society of the Raipur village and regularly depositing milk in the coop. Society.
[7.0] Prima-facie, there is nothing to show that the cow progeny were being transported for the purpose of slaughter. The mere bald assertion on the part of the police in that regard would not be sufficient to attract the provision of Section 6A of the Act which imposes a bar for release of the muddamal for a period of six months from the date of the seizure. Perusing the report, it appears that there is no allegation of slaughter and therefore, straightway Section 6(A) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act would not get attracted. Merely based on presumption, FIR came to be filed and muddamal has been seized. Even the said aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. Even this is not a case where prescribed limit of six months is not over. Though muddamal is seized in March, 2023, six month time has lapsed and thereafter, no any confiscation proceedings are initiated. Under the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act (Amendment) Act, 2017, more particularly Section 18 (4) The Gujarat Animal Cruelty Rules, specifically the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, cattle seized during alleged offence, maintenance cost is required to be recovered but till date, no any proceedings are initiated and order of the lower Court is silent on the said aspect. In absence of any such material, it is expedient to release the same and hence, keeping in mind the aforesaid peculiar fact and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002)10 SCC 283, with certain stringent conditions, present petition deserves consideration in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .
Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:51:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8789/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
[8.0] This Court has relied on judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arvindkumar Babulal Khandelval v. State of Gujarat, reported in ABC 2015 (II0 363 GUJ wherein it is observed as under:
"8. The moot question is whether the provisions of section 6(A) clause (4) applies in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 6(A) clause (1) reads as under:
(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any animal specified in subsection (1A) of section 5 from any place within the State to any another place within the State for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be so slaughtered:
Provided that a person shall be deemed to be transporting such animal for the purpose of slaughter unless contrary is proved thereto to the satisfaction of the concerned authority or officer by such person or he has obtained a permit under subsection (2) for transporting animal for bona fide agricultural or animal husbandry purpose from such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf."
A restriction under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to release the muddamal would apply only in a case where the animals are being transported for the purpose of slaughter. Herein, no such case of prosecution. In view of above, there is no bar to invoke the powers under Section 451 of the CrPC also.
[9.0] In the result, this petition is allowed. Rajpur Deesa Panjara Pole is hereby directed to hand over the custody of goats seized in connection with the offence being FIR being C.R. No. 11195035250217 of 2025 registered with Palanpur Taluka Police Station, Banaskantha, for the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to the petitioner. It is open for Rajpur Deesa Panjara Pole to recover care and maintenance charges of the said cattle under Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.
(i) The petitioner shall not cause any cruelty and to take proper care of the cattle;
(ii) In the event of transporting cattle, shall arrange proper food and water with vaccination certificate;Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:51:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8789/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any illegal activity in future;
(vi) Concerned Panjara Pole shall have liberty to recover care and maintenance amount of animals from the petitioner.
[12.0] Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:51:25 IST 2025