The Bombay High Court has recently rejected interim custody of over 68 cattle to its owners in a case under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960 for failing to follow the mandatory norms while transporting the animals.
Although the owners claimed that they were being deprived of income from their milching buffaloes, the court ruled that the buffaloes would remain in the custody of the Gaushala (cow shelter) until the conclusion of the trial.
The animals had been placed at the Gaushala after being seized early last year.
Justice GA Sanap dismissed two separate appeals filed by the cattle owners, noting that the Gaushalas were better equipped to care for the animals. The order was passed on April 19, and the order copy was uploaded earlier this month.
“While deciding such matter, the prime consideration must be the welfare, protection, and maintenance of the animals. The Court has to see who is comparatively better suited and equipped to provide the necessary comfort and protection to the animals.”
The cattle were seized by the Nagpur police on March 1 and 10, 2022, from four vehicles following a tip-off about illegal transportation. A case was registered under Section 11(1)(d) of the PCA Act, 1960, for treating the animals with cruelty during transport, as well as under Sections 66 & 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The prosecution alleged that the cattle were being transported inhumanely, without adhering to the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, and its 2001 amendment. The animals were transported without a veterinarian’s fitness certificate, with a number exceeding the allowed limit per vehicle, and without provisions for first aid, fodder, or water.
The cattle owners initially approached the Magistrate’s court, which refused to grant them custody. They then filed a revision application before the Sessions Court, which also denied relief. Finally, they approached the High Court.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Laique Hussain, argued that they possessed a valid trade license for the sale & purchase of animals from the APMC market. They contended that as the owners, they should not be denied custody of the cattle.
They further claimed that some of the cattle were milching, and they were being deprived of income. They argued that the animals were not mistreated and that they should not have to wait until the end of the trial.
Advocate D. R. Galande, representing Maa Foundation Gaushala, asserted that they were better equipped to care for the buffaloes. They also agreed to waive off the maintenance charges for the 68 cattle.
Justice Sanap observed that despite mandatory restrictions, more than 6 cattle were being transported in a goods vehicle during the interception.
The court cited a Supreme Court judgment where a truck was found transporting over double (47) the number of cattle, and the apex court denied interim custody of the animals.
The court observed that, “It is seen on perusal of the facts brought on record that majority of the animals are milching buffaloes. Compared to the cow, milching buffalo is large in size. The milching buffaloes were cramped in the vehicle, which were not fitted with padding etc. There was no provision of water and fodder.”
The court observed that prima facie, there were violations of the law and rules in these cases. The petitioners failed to provide specific contentions regarding the availability of maintenance and shelter provisions.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.
