Can the court direct the accused to pay money to maintain the seized cattle and keep the Truck as security?

 Considering the above rival contention and

perusal of the impugned order of the learned JMFC and

Judgment of the learned Sessions Court, it is apparent

that the question whether the animals which admittedly

were purchased for the purpose of trade by the

petitioner, were to be used for the purpose of sale,

slaughter or otherwise is a question which will have to

be determined by the learned JMFC during the trial of

the proceeding. It is admitted position that that animals

have been given in the custody of the respondent No. 2

and the respondent No. 2 is taking care of them. The

petitioner has not complied the direction of the learned

JFMC, by which the cost of maintenance of the animals

have been directed to be deposited. Rather on the

contrary, a plea is now sought to be raised for reduction

of the amount of maintenance from Rs. 200/- per day to

Rss 20/- per day which is contradictory to what has

been fixed as the minimum cost of maintenance as per

the Notification dated 27.02.2019 issued by the

Maharashtra Animal Welfare Board. Under Rule 5(4) of

Rules 2017, which are presently in force, in view of the

clarification of the Hon’ble Apex Court date 11.08.2017

in WP (C) No. 422, 419, 499, 497 of 2017, the vehicle

has to stand as security for the purpose of cost of

maintenance which admittedly has not been paid or

deposited by the petitioner. {Para 6}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 886/2021

Mohammad Rajik S/o Mohammad Akil Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.

CORAM :- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED :- 10.03.2022

Print Page

Good legal article on Criminalization of Animal Rape

Submitted by

• Archit Uniyal
•  1st degree connection
• Archit has a account

3rd Year Student at Jindal Global Law School

• Dehradun, Uttaranchal, India 

• 
  

    Why Animal Rape should be Criminalized

On 17^th November 2018 in Malwani area, Mumbai, 4 men who were reportedly drugged brutally gang raped a male dog, leaving him with mutilated genitalia. The dog was found the next day bleeding heavily and when a woman tried to offer him food, he started yelling and won’t let anyone touch him. The woman was informed by an auto driver that when he found the dog, his mouth was gagged, and front legs were tied while being sexually tortured. The dog succumbed to the injuries on 21^st November.

Cruelty against animals

Article 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1960) defines animal cruelty as - When any person― (a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (1860) defines unnatural offences – a person shall be punished with imprisonment for life or for a term that may extend to 10 years if has voluntary carnal intercourse against an animal.

Print Page

Whether owners of cattles roaming on Roads should be prosecuted?

So far as cows and cattle roaming on roads are concerned, it
is duty of Nagar Nigam and Police to remove them and to
ensure that no cows or animals come on road creating
obstruction to traffic and threat to life.
Secretary, Nagar Vikas, State of U.P. is directed to issue
necessary instructions in this regard to Nagar
Ayukts/Executive Officers of local bodies. If animals are
spotted on city roads and not removed quickly, proper action
may be contemplated. Superintendents of Police are directed
to extend necessary assistance to the Municipal
Boards/Municipal Corporations in carrying out the above
directions.
Cattle owners cannot be seen withholding their hands, to
leave the cattle on road surviving on water of drains/sewer
and garbage which is definitely a cruelty. As such, owners of
such animals should be prosecuted under the provisions of
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Act
and Sections 289, 428, 429 I.P.C. as well. This will deter
cattle owner from frequently leaving animals free on roads,
putting their as well as citizens' life in danger.
Cows basking on road/traffic islands and digging polythene
in garbage yard is not a pleasant sight, especially in the
capital city of State. To rid Lucknow of this menace, Nagar16
Ayukta, Lucknow is directed to launch a drive immediately
in the light of discussion made above, with the help of
police force to be provided by S.S.P.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
LAKHNOW BENCH
Case :- BAIL No. - 9113 of 2015
Imtiyaz V  State Of U.P.
Dated;04/12/2015

Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J.

Print Page

When shebuffaloes can be released on supratnama to its owner?

I   am   completely   in   agreement   with   the   argument   so
advanced   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.2.     Once   it   is   found   that
respondent No.2 is prima facie owner of the seized cattle and it has

also   been   found   that   on   the   parameters   governing   discretion   for
release of custody of the seized articles or cattle under Section 457
Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 is entitled to the custody of the animals, the
Court cannot stand in between respondent No.2 and the animals on
the ground that trial is likely to be concluded in a shorter period of
time. Otherwise, it would only mean granting that relief quietly which
cannot be granted openly.  That apart, as submitted by learned A.P.P.
for the  State, statement of  the seller of she­buffaloes is yet to be
recorded.  This would mean that it cannot be said with any certainty
that trial of the case would be over very soon. 
16. Having regard to the aspect of ownership as well as the
parameters   governing   discretion   of   the   Court   under   Section   457
Cr.P.C., I am of the view that by and large the impugned order can be
seen to be in conformity with the law governing the discretionary
power under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and as such cannot be seen to be
perverse or arbitrary so as to warrant any interference in supervisory
jurisdiction   of   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     There   is,
therefore, no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.
However,  I find it necessary to stipulate certain additional conditions
as a precautionary measure.   On re­custody, all the animals shall be
released   on  supratnama  of   Rs.1,00,000/­   (rupees   one   lac   only)   to
respondent No.2 subject to following conditions which will be read in

addition to the conditions imposed in the impugned order.
    It is directed that respondent No.2 shall comply with the
conditions stated in Rule 47 and Rule 56 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to transport of Animals Rule, 1978 and shall produce
appropriate certificates/transport permits as required under
these   Rules   before   the   Court  of   J.M.F.C.  before   claiming
custody of the seized animals before the Magistrate, who is
taking cognizance of this case. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 790 OF 2014

Sarvodaya Goshala Charitable Trust Vs  The State of Maharashtra



CORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED  :  16th JANUARY, 2015.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)2599

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by magistrate for releasing cattle on supratnama who are taken for slaughtering

 In Krushi Goseva Sangh's case (supra), this Court has observed that section 6 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act imposes restrictions on slaughter of scheduled animals and offence punishable under the Act is declared as cognizable by section 10. It is further held that the animal which is the subject of crime can safely be held to be the "property" regarding which offence is committed and recourse can be taken to section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for seeking a direction from the Competent Court of law for the custody and disposal of the property pending trial. The order should be for preservation and protection of cows and scheduled animals and not for their slaughter or destruction. This Court further observed thus:
It is now well settled that what is directly forbidden cannot be indirectly permitted. The observations and guidelines of High Court in W.P. No. 714 of 1986 decided on 12.8.1996, Ejaz Ahmed vs. State of Maharashtra should be kept in view while passing an order under section 451. If Organizations like Goseva Sangh or the Panjarapole come forward for taking responsibility of preservation and protection of cattle, then they should be preferred but before handing over the custody to any person or institution, the Court should ascertain whether they would be able to make adequate arrangements for maintenance, preservation and protection of cattle....
Equivalent Citation: 2012BomCR(Cri)469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Criminal Application No. 121 of 2011
Decided On: 27.07.2011

 Go-Vigyan Anusandhan Kendra  Vs.  State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Bhangale, J.

Print Page