Madras High Court
Mohandass vs State Represented By on 4 August, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 04.04.2025
Pronounced on : 04.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024
Mohandass ... Petitioner/
Accused No.1
Vs.
1.State represented by
Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
Samayapuram Police Station,
Tiruchirapalli District.
(Crime No.132 of 2024)
2.Ramakrishnan ... Respondents
(R2 is impleaded as per order of the Court dated
03.09.2024 in Crl.MP(MD)No.8639 of 2024 in
Crl.RC(MD)No.640 of 2024)
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order dated 03.06.2024
passed in Crl.M.P.No.11800 of 2024 in Crime No.132 of 2024 on the file
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024
of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli and direct to release 53
bulls.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajesh
For Respondents : Mrs.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
Mr.J.Sankara Pandian for R2
ORDER
The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.11800 of 2024 dated 03.06.2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli, dismissing the petition filed under Section 457 r/w 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioner is the first accused and the first respondent police, upon receipt of the secret information, intercepted a Ashok Leyland lorry bearing Registration No.AP-39-UG-7585 and found that about 53 bulls were being carried in a cruel and congested manner without any space or adequate facilities for food or water and were being transported to Kerala for slaughtering purposes and on that basis, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.132 of 2024 against two persons including the petitioner for the 2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 alleged offences under Section 429 IPC, Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 4 of TN Animal Preservation Act, 1958.
3. It is not in dispute that the above said 53 bulls were seized and the same were entrusted in the Goshala run by Sri Foundation Group in Keezha Vayalur for safe custody.
4. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said bulls has moved a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli under Section 457 r/w 451 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.11800 of 2024 seeking orders claiming interim custody of the bulls alleging that the petitioner purchased the bulls in Nellore market of Andhra Pradesh and hence, 53 bulls are belonging to him, that the petitioner purchased the said bulls for his agricultural operations but the first respondent police has foisted a false case and that the first respondent police has handed over the bulls to Sri Foundation Group Goshala at Keezha Vayalur, Trichy and the bulls would die without receiving proper and adequate nutrition and improper maintenance. The first respondent police has raised objections stating that 3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 the bulls were subjected to cruelty by the petitioner as they were loaded in a lorry in a congested manner without any space and adequate facilities and that the bulls were being transported illegally to slaughter house in Kerala without any proper fitness certificate. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 dismissing the petition. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the first accused has come forward with the present revision.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased 53 bulls in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh by paying necessary cess to Animals Market Committee at Nellore and transported to Pollachi for agricultural, farming purposes, that the bulls are transported by providing water and fodder to prevent from hunger and with proper ventilation, that the bulls were loaded only after feeding and hydrate, that the petitioner has produced the necessary certificate issued under Rule 96 of Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, that the learned Magistrate, without considering the said certificate in proper perspective, observed that the certificate does not correspond with the prescribed proforma under Rule 47 of Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 and that the 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 learned Magistrate, without anything in the FIR, has erroneously come to a decision that the petitioner has violated Rules 47, 54 and 56 of Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, Section 4(3) of Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958 and also Section 3 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and proceeded to dismiss the petition.
6. When the above revision was pending, one Ramakrishnan claiming to be the Honorary Animal Welfare Representative of Animal Welfare Board of India moved a petition in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8639 of 2024 to get himself implead in the revision and this Court, considering the objections raised by the petitioner, allowed the petition vide order dated 03.09.2024 and directed for impleadment as second respondent.
7. The second respondent's case is as follows: Upon learning about the seizure of the bulls through his friend and fellow Animal Welfare Activist, Mr. Sai Vignesh, the second respondent promptly visited the police station to assist with procedures. However, individuals claiming to be Animal Welfare Board authorities, namely Senthil, Thakshinamoorthy, and another person, arrived and instructed the police to release the seized 5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 bulls. After verifying with higher officials, the second respondent discovered these individuals were impersonating authorities. Despite submitting a written complaint, the police refused to register a case. The second respondent then sent representations to higher authorities and the Animal Welfare Board of India and filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No 3, Trichy. The bulls are currently being cared for at Goshala, with donors providing food through Board representatives and Animal Welfare Activists. The accused have committed serious offenses, including illegal transportation, misrepresentation, and impersonation. Furthermore, the manner in which the accused acted before the police station raises concerns about a potential mafia involvement. Notably, the petitioner was transporting 53 bulls in a vehicle with their legs tied, leaving insufficient space, resulting in serious injuries to the cattle.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and another Vs. Chakram Moraji Nat and others reported in 1998 6 SCC 520, wherein, the Manager, Pinjrapole filed appeals against the 6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat declining to grant interim custody of the animals to the appellants in contravention of Section 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeals confirming the common judgment passed by the High Court and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-
“In view of the above discussion and provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C., it appears to us that unless the owner of the animal in respect of which he is facing prosecution, is deprived of the custody (which can be done only on his conviction under the Act for the second time), no bar can be inferred against him to claim interim custody of the animal.”
9. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raguramsharma and another Vs. C.Thulsi and another reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 1325, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal and thereby setting aside the order granting interim custody of the cattle seized in Crime No.114 of 2019 on the file of Archirapakkam police station and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Counsel invited 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 our attention to Rule 56 of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, which is to the following effect:
Rule 56. When cattle are to be transported by goods vehicle the following precautions are to be taken namely:
(a) Specially fitted goods vehicles with a special type of tail board and padding ground the sides should be used.
(b) Ordinary goods vehicles shall be provided with anti-slipping material, such as coir matting or wooden board on the floor and the superstructure, if law, should be raised.
(c) no goods vehicle shall carry more than six cattle.
(d) each goods vehicle shall be provided with one attendant.
(e) while transporting, the cattle, the goods vehicle shall not be loaded with any other merchandise; and
(f) to prevent cattle being frightened or injured, they should preferably, face the engine.
Thus, a container or a vehicle could not have carried more than six cattle but as the facts indicate, the number of animals which were transported was 37. The governing norms and principles were thus violated. It does not appear to be a single or a solitary incident. In subsequent FIR No.207 dated 04.09.2019, as against permissible norm of six cattle, the number of animals which were being 8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 transported was 47. The fact that this had adverse impact on the health of cattle is also clear inasmuch as in the present case, one buffalo died while being transported and in the subsequent case, six animals lost their lives.”
10. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would also rely on a decision of this Court in Krishnamoorthy Vs. Inspector of Police, M.Reddiyapatti Police Station and another in Crl.R.C.(MD)No. 543 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022, wherein, this Court, after considering the various decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that since the owner therein being prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to the animals, is not entitled to get the custody of the cattle and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in Nazeer Vs. State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station, Erode and others reported in (2017) 4 MLJ (Crl) 646, wherein, a learned Judge of this Court has permitted the petitioner therein to retain the custody of Buffaloes by imposing certain conditions and directed the petitioner to follow the rules, if he intends to transport the Buffaloes in future by road or any form of transport.9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judicial Magistrate, in two other decisions of this Court in Shakeer Ali Vs. State rep.by its The Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District and Ginjala Naga Appala Raju Vs. State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Avinashi Police Station, Thiruppur District, in Crl.R.C.No.965 of 2021 and Crl.R.C.No.73 of 2022, dated 21.01.2022 and 02.02.2022 respectively, another learned Judge of this Court has held that the petitioners therein had handed over the cattles to the transporter for transporting the same from Krishnagiri to his cattle farm in Pollachi in the first case and from Thanjavur to his cattle farm in Pollachi. Admittedly, in both the above cases, the cattles were not transported for slaughtering and hence, the cattles were ordered to be returned to the petitioners/owners of the cattles on interim custody.
11. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of this Court in Naseerulah Vs. State by : Sub- Inspector of Police, Coonoor and another in Crl.R.C.No. 777 of 2010, dated 14.03.2013.
“12. In this connection, Section 429 of I.P.C.
also can be taken note of. In this case, Section 429 of I.P.C. provides punishment for mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the 10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 value of fifty rupees with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The said section is a cognizable one. If we read Section 429 of I.P.C., the word used in the Section is even maiming the cattle and it is also included Cow or Ox. Here we come across in one vehicle more than 20 cows or buffaloes were transported and in that process, namely the people who has taken it in the vehicle or during the transport, one animal is being attacked by another which shows only the inhumane attitude and inducement of the said person transporting the animals. Therefore, even the maiming or injury caused because of the illegal transportation therefore, the owner can be hauled up. Unfortunately, when all these provisions are there, we find that these people transported these animals to butchery without following the rules and regulations. Taking into consideration that the prices are different from State to State. In fact, most of the cases, cattle are being transported continuously for a period of 48 hours crossing inter-State border without even providing fodder or water. They are mostly taken only for slaughtering house in Kerala. They are transported in complete violation of the legal provisions, that too, right under the nose of the authority who is duty bound to implement such laws. 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 The object of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, is only to prevent animals from being put to cruelty and that it is imperative to implement both these Acts by the authorities concerned. I only fervently hope that hereafter these laws which are provided for preventing cruelty to animals will be implemented in the strict sense. The lower Courts in Tamil Nadu shall take note of these provisions and also see that as to how the offenders should be punished properly. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court that the petitioner is not entitled for return of the cattle is well founded and correct. At the same time, another painful thing has happened in this case and that has also to be taken note of. Subsequent to the cattle being handed over to the second respondent, they have maintained it for six months and during that period 21 cattle also died. The post mortem certificate have been produced. In all the cases, they have sustained injuries during illegal transportation. In fact, in one case, gangrene has set in and it has been operated from spreading further and the injuries of the nature sustained only during illegal transportation was the cause of the death. Here is the fittest case where Court has to come to the rescue of the animals and prevent cruelty meted out to the poor animals and the watchful thing of society 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 which are taking care of the animals should be encouraged to stop this offence. Stringent action should be taken as against those who violates the laws in future. Even the vehicles which are used should be dealt with under the Motor Vehicles Act concerned and punishment has to be imposed.” ....
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that 36 Cows were transported in a single container and the way in which, they were kept jam- packed and also taking note of the facts that there was no water or food for the cattles during transportation, but are having green chillies for placing in the eyes of the Cows so as to make them stand for long travel and also the injuries suffered by some of the Cows and most of them are aged below 10 years and also the fact that the petitioner has not shown that he had taken the Cows for agricultural purposes, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to the animals and as such, the impugned order, dismissing the petition cannot be found fault with.”
11. As aptly noted by the petitioner's learned counsel, a certificate purportedly issued by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon under Rule 96 of 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 the Transportation of Animals Rules, 2001, was produced. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate observed that several columns in the certificate were left blank, and it deviated from the prescribed proforma under Rule 47 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. The learned counsel for the second respondent has rightly highlighted the Magistrate's consideration of various violations under the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Notably, the certificate indicated that all 53 bulls were between 3 and 7 years old, whereas Section 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, stipulates that animals under 10 years old are fit for work and breeding purposes. The transportation of 53 bulls in a single vehicle with their legs tied, forcing them to remain jam-packed, raises serious concerns.
12. Rule 56 of Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 contemplates that no goods vehicle shall carry more than six cattle and that specially fitted goods vehicles with a special type of tail board and padding around the sides should be used. Rule 47 of Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 mandates that a valid certificate by a qualified veterinary surgeon to the 14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 effect that the cattle are in a fit condition to travel by rail or road and are not suffering from any infectious or contagious or parasitic diseases and that they have been vaccinated against rinderpest and any other infectious or contagious or parasitic diseases, shall accompany each consignment. Rule 54 of Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 contemplates that sufficient quantity of water and sufficient amount of feed and fodder shall be carried during the journey. Section 3 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 says that it shall be the duty of every owner or caretaker of the animal to take all reasonable measures to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering upon the animal.
13. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, transporting 53 bulls in a single closed container lorry in a jam-packed condition, without adequate ventilation, food, or water, constitutes infliction of pain and cruelty. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondenl, the petitioner did not specify whether necessary provisions for water and fodder were made during transportation.
14. No doubt, in the petition filed under Section 457 r/w 451 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has stated that he purchased the bulls for his agricultural operation, but he has not elaborated anything further. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent police and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, the petitioner has not produced any iota of materials or evidence to show that the petitioner is having agriculture lands and is doing agricultural operations and is in need of bulls for agricultural work.
15. Given the circumstances, including the transportation of 53 bulls in a single container under jam-packed conditions without adequate water or fodder, and considering the bulls' ages are below 10 years, this Court finds that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to the animals. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate the bulls were transported for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the petition cannot be found fault with.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner would allege inadequate care of the bulls at the Sri Foundation Group's Goshala in Keezha Vayalur, 16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 resulting in the death of two bulls. Although the learned counsel for the second respondent would claim food provision through Board representatives and Animal Welfare Activists, the bulls' deaths are undisputed. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli is directed to send a jurisdictional Veterinary Surgeon to the Goshala to inspect the bulls, verify their maintenance, and investigate the cause of death of the two bulls. If the Magistrate determines the bulls are not being properly maintained, after hearing the parties, the Magistrate may change the custody of the bulls to another Goshala or institution for safe custody.
17. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
04.08.2025 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm Pre-Delivery Order made in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.640 of 2024 Dated : 04.08.2025 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 05:34:35 pm )