Interim Custody Of Cattles Cannot Be Given To Owners Violating Animal Transport Rules: Orissa HC Allows Dhyan Foundation's Plea
The Orissa High Court ruled that even interim custody of cattles cannot be granted to the owner when the facts showed that he violated the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978 while transporting the cattle.
The Court was hearing a petition by the Dhyan Foundation against the decision of the revisional Court which released the seized cattle to the opposite party holding that there is no bar for the accused owner to take custody of the animals during the pendency of litigation.
The bench of Justice Sibo Shankar Mishra observed, “If in a given case the facts are glaring from the record that the cattle were being transported in violation of the provisions of Rule 56(c) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 and health certificate was not issued by Veterinary Department in terms of the provision of Rule 47(a) of the Transport of Animals Rules, there is no question of giving even interim custody to such owner even from the very reading of Section 29 of the PCA Act.”
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra appeared for the appellant and Additional Standing Counsel P.K. Maharaj appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The opposite party was transporting the cattle illegally for which a case under Section 11(1)(d)(e)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Act,1960 was registered against him and the cattle as well as the vehicle was seized. It was found that the said opposite party had tied and dumped the cattle in the offending vehicle without providing them with food and water.
The Court noted that the chance of further cruelty likely to be caused to the cattle if given to the perpetrator of law cannot be ruled out, rather the interim custody should be entrusted to a neutral body, which can protect and preserve the cattle in safe.
The Court stated that after the final disposal of the case, the trial court shall pass appropriate orders regarding disposal or custody or confiscation of the cattle, vehicle etc. as the case may be by law.
The single bench stated that the Revisional Court failed to appreciate the conduct of the accused that fake documents were produced by him to establish his ownership and it also did not take into consideration the object of the PCA Act and its Rules as well, while passing the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of the District and Sessions Judge and remanded back the matter to the same Court to decide the revision petition afresh.
The Court disposed of the Petition.
Cause Title: Dhyan Foundation v. State of Odisha
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Adv. Sidharth Luthra, Adv. T.K. Sahu, Adv. A. Anand, Adv. P. Singhal, Adv. R.R. Gupta
Respondent: ASC P.K. Maharaj, Adv. Jayanta Kumar Majhi, Adv. Gopal Krushna Acharya, Adv. Madan Mohan Mishra
