Supreme Court clarifies interim custody of seized cattle under Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act: Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala vs. State of Maharashtra (2022) INSC 809 (30 September 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 809
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, JJ.
Can a gaushala (cow shelter) claim preferential right to interim custody of seized cattle over the owners, especially when the owners are accused of transporting the animals cruelly? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question while interpreting the provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. This judgment clarifies the legal position on interim custody of seized cattle, emphasizing the welfare of the animals.

Case Background

On March 17, 2019, a truck carrying eighteen cattle (fifteen bullocks and three buffaloes) was intercepted. The driver could not produce satisfactory permits. The cattle were seized, and a First Information Report (FIR No. 59 of 2019) was registered at Parbhani Rural Police Station for offences under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995, Section 6 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act 1976, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and other related provisions.

The respondents claimed ownership of the cattle, while the appellant, a gaushala, sought interim custody for the welfare and protection of the animals.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Parbhani, initially granted interim custody to the gaushala (appellant) on April 1, 2019, noting the lack of proper permits with the owners and the safety of the cattle in the gaushala’s care. The JMFC also directed the owners to pay Rs. 100 per head of cattle per day for maintenance.

However, the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Parbhani, reversed this decision on April 24, 2019, granting custody to the owners subject to an indemnity bond. The Sessions Judge reasoned that the owners had a preferential right to custody under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on October 17, 2019, upholding the Sessions Judge’s order, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Another v. Chakram Moraji Nat and Others [(1998) 6 SCC 520]. The High Court, while acknowledging the cruel conditions of transport, held that there was no evidence of physical harm or starvation to the cattle and that the owners could be trusted to care for them.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, particularly the proviso to Section 8(3), which was inserted by the Amending Act of 1995. This proviso stipulates that seized cattle should be handed over to the nearest gosadan, goshala, pinjrapole, hinsa nivaran sangh, or other animal welfare organizations willing to accept custody, pending trial. The accused is liable to pay for the maintenance of the cattle during this period.

Section 8 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, outlines the powers of entry, search, seizure, and custody of animals. Specifically, Section 8(3) states:

“(3) Any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government, may, with a view to securing compliance of the provisions of Sections 5-A, 5-B, 5-C or 5-D, 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 intended to be used for the export of cow, bull or bullock;
(b) seize or authorise the seizure of cow, bull or bullock in respect of which he suspects that any provision of Sections 5-A, 5-B, 5-C or 5-D has been, is being or is about to be contravened, along with the vehicles in which such cow, bull or bullock are found and there after take or authorise the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of such cow, bull or bullock and the vehicles so seized, in a court and for their safe custody pending such production:
Provided that pending trial, seized cow, bull or bullock shall be handed over to the nearest Gosadan, Goshala, Panjrapole, Hinsa Nivaran Sangh or such other Animal Welfare Organizations willing to accept such custody and the accused shall be liable to pay for their maintenance for the period they remain in custody with any of the said institutions or organizations as per the orders of the court.”

Section 5A of the Maharashtra Act prohibits the transport and export of cows, bulls, or bullocks for slaughter.

The High Court had relied on Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Another v. Chakram Moraji Nat and Others [(1998) 6 SCC 520], which interpreted Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. This section allows a Magistrate to direct that an animal be treated in an infirmary, sent to a pinjrapole, or destroyed if incurable. The Supreme Court in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar held that the Magistrate has discretion to hand over interim custody to a pinjrapole but is not bound to do so.

Arguments

The appellant (gaushala) argued that the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act mandates that the seized cattle be handed over to an animal welfare organization, like the appellant. They contended that the owners were transporting the cattle cruelly, violating the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, and thus should not be given custody.

The State of Maharashtra supported the appellant’s position, emphasizing the need to protect the cattle from further cruelty and ensure their proper care.

The private respondents (owners), though served notice, did not appear before the Supreme Court. They had previously argued that as owners, they had a preferential right to the interim custody of the cattle.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting interim custody of the seized cattle to the private respondents (owners) instead of the appellant (gaushala) in light of the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

✓ Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Another v. Chakram Moraji Nat and Others [(1998) 6 SCC 520] – The Supreme Court of India. This case interpreted Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, holding that the Magistrate has discretion to hand over interim custody to a pinjrapole but is not bound to do so.

✓ Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 – This section empowers a police officer to seize cattle suspected of contravening Sections 5A, 5B, 5C, or 5D of the Act.

✓ Proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 – This proviso mandates that seized cattle be handed over to the nearest gosadan, goshala, pinjrapole, hinsa nivaran sangh, or other animal welfare organization willing to accept custody, pending trial.

✓ Section 5A of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 – This section prohibits the transport and export of cows, bulls, or bullocks for slaughter.

✓ Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 – These rules, framed under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, lay down specifications for the transportation of animals.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the JMFC’s order. The Court held that the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act mandates that seized cattle be handed over to an animal welfare organization pending trial.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had correctly noted that the cattle were transported in a cruel manner, violating the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. The Court noted that the intention of the legislature in incorporating the proviso to Section 8(3) was to give effect to the object of the Maharashtra Act to preserve and protect cows, bulls, and bullocks.

The Court observed that the appellant had shown willingness to accept the interim custody of the cattle. The Court held that the JMFC had rightly concluded that the cattle would be safe in the custody of the appellant, especially given that the owners were prima facie transporting the cattle in cruel conditions without a valid permit.

The Court also directed that trials for offences under the Maharashtra Act must be concluded expeditiously, preferably within six months, to avoid prolonged custody of the animals.

The Court noted that since the seizure of the cattle in February 2019, two of the cattle have died, leaving sixteen cattle in the balance with the appellant.

The Court also noted a previous case, Jagatguru Sant Tukaram Goshala v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, where cattle seized in 2012 remained in custody for a decade, outliving their commercial utility. This further emphasized the need for speedy trials.

The Court stated that the appellants had stated that they would not insist on claiming any compensation for the maintenance of the animals pending the trial.

The Court ordered that the JMFC shall conclude the trial within three months.

The Supreme Court overruled the High Court’s decision, which had relied on Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Another v. Chakram Moraji Nat and Others [(1998) 6 SCC 520]. The Supreme Court clarified that the Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar case was based on Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which does not have a mandatory provision like the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.

The Supreme Court stated:
“In the present case, the High Court upon evaluating the circumstances in which the cattle were being transported arrived at a prima facie conclusion that as many as eighteen cattle were being transported in one vehicle. The High Court has also noted that this constituted cruelty as it violated Rule 56 of the Transport of Animal Rules 1978 framed in accordance with the enabling provisions of Section 38 of the PCA Act.”

The Supreme Court stated:
“The intention of the legislature in incorporating the proviso to Section 8(3) was to give effect to the object of the Maharashtra Act to preserve and protect cows, bulls, and bullocks useful for milch, breeding, draught, or agricultural purposes.”

The Supreme Court stated:
“In light of the prima facie observation that the private respondents were in violation of the Transport of Animal Rules 1978, it was incumbent upon the High Court to ensure that the seized cattle would be properly preserved and maintained until the conclusion of the trial proceedings.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect the welfare of the animals. The Court emphasized that when animals are seized due to cruel treatment, their safety and well-being should be the paramount concern. The Court noted that the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act was specifically designed to ensure that seized cattle are placed in the care of organizations dedicated to animal welfare.

The Court also considered the specific circumstances of the case, including the fact that the owners were found to be transporting the cattle in violation of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. This violation indicated a lack of care for the animals, further supporting the Court’s decision to grant custody to the gaushala.

Additionally, the Court was mindful of the need for speedy trials in such cases. The Court noted the previous instance where seized cattle remained in custody for an extended period, losing their commercial value. The Court’s direction to conclude trials within six months was aimed at preventing similar situations and ensuring that the animals’ welfare is not compromised by prolonged legal proceedings.

The Court also distinguished the case of Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar, clarifying that the legal framework under the Maharashtra Act was different and more specific in mandating the interim custody to animal welfare organizations.

The Court’s emphasis on the legislative intent behind Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Act further solidified its decision. The Court reiterated that the law was enacted to protect cattle and ensure their well-being, which aligns with the decision to prioritize the custody of an animal welfare organization over the owners who were found to be violating the animal transport rules.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ When cattle are seized under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, due to suspected violations of transport rules, the interim custody should be given to a gosadan, goshala, pinjrapole, or other animal welfare organization willing to accept such custody, as per the proviso to Section 8(3).
• ✓ The welfare of the animals is paramount in deciding interim custody. If owners have violated animal transport rules, their claim to custody is secondary to that of animal welfare organizations.
• ✓ Trials for offences under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, must be concluded expeditiously, preferably within six months, to avoid prolonged custody of the animals.
• ✓ The decision in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar, which was based on Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, does not apply to cases under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, due to the specific mandatory provision in the proviso to Section 8(3).

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the trial for offences punishable under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, must be concluded within three months by the JMFC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the proviso to Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, mandates that seized cattle be handed over to an animal welfare organization, especially when the owners are found to be transporting the cattle cruelly. This decision clarifies that in such cases, the welfare of the animals takes precedence over the owner’s claim to interim custody.

The Supreme Court’s judgment also clarifies that the decision in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Another v. Chakram Moraji Nat and Others [(1998) 6 SCC 520], which was based on Section 35(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, does not apply to cases under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, due to the specific mandatory provision in the proviso to Section 8(3). This interpretation marks a departure from the High Court’s reliance on the Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar case, thereby establishing a new legal position for cases under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala vs. State of Maharashtra clarifies the legal position on interim custody of seized cattle under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. The Court emphasized that the welfare of the animals is paramount and that the proviso to Section 8(3) mandates that seized cattle be handed over to an animal welfare organization, especially when the owners are found to be transporting the animals cruelly. This decision ensures that animals are protected and cared for, while also emphasizing the need for speedy trials to avoid prolonged custody.