Delhi District Court
Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre vs Nawabuddin @ Aslum S/O Haza Asgar on 21 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG-I :SPECIAL JUDGE-IV,
(PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CR No. 34/2015
ID No. 02401R0563722015
Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre
Near Rajdhani College, Raja Garden,
New Delhi. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Nawabuddin @ Aslum s/o Haza Asgar
A12, DDA Flats, Inder Lok, Delhi 110035,
2.Mukku c/o Nawabuddin,
3.Sajid c/o Nawabuddin,
4.Anisha w/o late Saleem c/o Nawabuddin,
5.Babu R/o Atarshi, Uttar Pradesh,
6.Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi. ... Respondents
Date of Institution: 17.10.2015
Date of Arguments: 10.11.2015
Date of Judgment: 21.11.2015
ORDER
1. Vide this petition, order impugned is dated 7.8.2015 vide which 20 seized animals comprising 11 Cows, 7 Bulls and 2 Calves were ordered to be released on superdari to respondent-accused (R-1) on his application dated 6.8.2015 seeking release of these 20 animals on superdari.
CR No. 34/2015 Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Nawabuddin & ors. Page 1 of 82.Briefly facts of the case are that FIR no. 804/2015 PS Sarai Rohilla was registered under Sections 5.1/5.2/12 Delhi Agricultural Cattle Prevention Act, Sections 11A/11D/11E/11I/11L The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Sections 429/34 IPC and Sections 50/177 Motor Vehicles Act on the allegations that on 22.7.2015, R-1 with other respondents at about 11.30/11.45 PM were loading the Cows with calves forcibly in a big truck to be taken to Sambhal, UP for slaughtering. Police took the animals to Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre, Raja Garden, i.e. the petitioner in this case and animals were admitted in the hospital. This case is under investigation and charge sheet has not been filed by police till date. On 7.8.2015, vide impugned order, application of R-1 for releasing these animals on superdari was allowed. Being aggrieved with this order, petitioner has filed this revision petition.
3.Heard arguments of Sh. S. D. Windlesh, Ld. counsel for petitioner, Sh. Usman Choudhary, Ld. counsel for R-1 and Sh. G. S. Guraya, Ld. APP for R-6 (State). Respondents no.2 to 5 did not file appearance despite due service of the notices.
4.One of the main contention made by Ld. counsel for petitioner is that under the proviso of Section 11(3) of Delhi Agricultural Cattle Act, seized animals are required to be handed over to nearest Gosadan/Gaushala or any other animal welfare organisation. It has been stated that petitioner is the only nearest Gosadan/Gaushala to which seized animals were handed over by the police, immediately after seizing. It has been stated that it is CR No. 34/2015 Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Nawabuddin & ors. Page 2 of 8 mandatory as per the Act that during trial seized agricultural cattle shall remain with nearest Gosadan/Gaushala and cannot be released on superdari. It has been stated that Ld. trial court failed to appreciate this provision of law and erred in releasing the animals on superdari to R-1.
5.Sh. Usman Chaudhary, Ld. counsel for R-1 submitted that petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. It has been further submitted that the seized animals were released on superdari to R-1, its owner, as per the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
6.Ld. APP has submitted that as per the Act during pendency of the trial seized agricultural cattle are required to remain in nearest Gosadan/Gaushala and cannot be released on superdari.
7.Section 11(3) of Delhi Agricultural Cattle Act provides as follows:-
11 Power of entry, search and seizure.-(1)....
(2)....
(3)Any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub- Inspector or any person authorised in this behalf by the Government of Delhi may, with a view to securing compliance of the provisions of section 5,7,8 or 9 for satisfying himself that the provisions of the said sections have been complied with may-
(a) enter, stop and search, or authorise any person to enter, stop and search any vehicle used or itnended to be used for the export of CR No. 34/2015 Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Nawabuddin & ors. Page 3 of 8 agricultural cattle;
(b) seize or authorise the seizure of agricultural cattle in respect of which he suspects that any provision of section 5,7,8 or 9 has been, is being, or is about to be contravened along with the vehicles in which such agricultural cattle are found and thereafter take or authorise the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of agricultural cattle and vehicles so seized, in a court and for their safe custody pending production:
Provided that pending trial seized agricultural cattle shall be handed over only to the nearest Gosadan, Goshala, Pinjrapole, Hinsa Nivaran Sangh and such other animal welfare organisations and the accused shall be liable to pay for their maintenance for the period they remain in custody which any of the said institutions/organisations.
8.Admittedly by Ld. counsel for petitioner that petitioner is not a complainant in this case and seized cattle have been sent to Gosadan/Gaushala being run by the petitioner by police immediately after seizing the same.
9.Ld. counsel for R-1 has contended that petitioner not being complainant in this case has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order vide this petition. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for petitioner has submitted that law is settled that in such cases role played by voluntary organisations has been well recognized. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of High Court of Adjudicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 25 of 1996 titled Bal Gangadhar CR No. 34/2015 Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Nawabuddin & ors. Page 4 of 8 Tripathi & anr. Vs. State of UP & anr. [decided on 19.1.1996]. In this case 9 trucks loaded with calves were seized by the police. The application moved by owner for release of these calves was dismissed by the court of magistrate. Against this order, owner filed revision petition and petitioner representing an organisation in the name of "Go Vansh Rakshan Evam Sanvardhan Parishad" moved application to be heard The court of ASJ at Faijabad refused to hear the petitioner submitting that he is neither complainant nor accused before the court, hence, no right of hearing. This order was challenged in the High Court. High Court directed the court of ASJ to hear the petitioner in the pending revision before disposing the same. The relevant observations of the High Court is as follows:-
"The animals are national assets. They are not only essential for the human living as they provide milk etc. but they help in maintaining ecological balance, even they help in maintaining ecological balance even they help in maintaining proper environment. Although the different legislatures have passed enactments for prevention of cruelty to animals but the Government machinery and government efforts by themselves are not sufficient and therefore the voluntary organizations have definitely an import role to play in the matter. It is very rare to find any private citizen approaching a court of law for prevention of cruelty to animals. In fact it is voluntary organizations and the persons having zeal and mission who came to court and bring the matter to the notice of the court or to the police or the appropriate government authorities, thus these matters are in the nature of public interest litigation although the cases may be tried or concluded largely within the CR No. 34/2015 Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Nawabuddin & ors. Page 5 of 8 frame work of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such matters to deny a right of hearing to the voluntary organization would be unjust and improper. In fact a division bench of this court in the case (in which) I was also a member Vishwa Hindu Adhivakta Sangh Vs. Union of India 1993 L.C.D. 112 (paragraph 62) observed that in matters of larger public interest the court must hear those persons who are vitally interested in the out come of those cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Ashutosh Lahiri & others (1995) I Supreme Court Cases 189 held that any person representing Hindu community challenging exemption granted under Sec. 12 of West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, to cow slaughtering on Bakrid day, has a locus standi to be heard in the matter. Further under Article 48 of the Constitution in para IV relating to Directive Principles of State Policy it has been provided that the State shall endeavour to prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and drought cattle. These matters cannot be decided just by narrowly interpreting section 301 Cr.P.C. even if Section 301 in strict terms may not be applicable to the facts of the case yet being almost in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and the petitioners being vitally interested in the same it would be just and proper to permit them to have a hearing in the revision because apart from other things in such mattes the prosecution or accused may not bring forth all the relevant facts in order to escape from clutches of law and therefore voluntary organizations which are represented by the petitioners should be hear by the court."
10.In view of the circumstances discussed above, I agree with the contentions raised by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that in such type of cases voluntary organisations play an important role to CR No. 34/2015 Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Nawabuddin & ors. Page 6 of 8 check the cruelty towards the animals and to meet the other objective of the Delhi Agricultural Cattle Prevention Act.
11.Proviso of Section 11(3) of the Act is categorical and specific that pending trial seized agricultural cattle shall be handed over to the nearest Gosadan/Gaushala only. No doubt Section 457 give discretion to the court to release the seized property/articles on superdari for the better upkeep of the property, but The Delhi Agricultural Cattle Prevention Act, 1994 is a special Act with the objective to provide protection to animals suitable for milching, draught, breeding or agricultural purposes. The language of proviso to Section 11(3) is clear and mandatory that seized agricultural cattle has to be handed over only to nearest Gosadan/Gaushala and accused shall be liable to pay for the maintenance for the period which they remains in custody with any of such institution. As per this proviso, no discretion has been left with the trial court for not handing over these seized agricultural cattle to the nearest Gosadan/Gaushala. This act being special Act, its provisions will prevail upon the general Law regarding superdari of the seized articles as provided under Section 457 Cr.P.C.
12.In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Ld. Trial Court fell in error by allowing the application of R-1 by releasing the seized agricultural cattle on superdari. Accordingly, revision petition stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
13.The court is aware of the fact that as per Section 11 of the Act, CR No. 34/2015 Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Nawabuddin & ors. Page 7 of 8 accused is burdened with the costs regarding maintenance of seized cattle without any benefit which a person draws from agricultural cattle or milching the cattle. Therefore, the court needs to be cautions that charge sheet in this case be filed at the earliest and thereafter trial be concluded expeditiously.
14.The trial court record along with copy of this order be sent back.
15.The file of the revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (SANJAY GARG-I)
on 21st November, 2015 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC Act)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
CR No. 34/2015 Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Nawabuddin & ors. Page 8 of 8