Assam Cattle Preservation Act | Extended Meaning Cannot Be Given To Word ‘Calves’ To Incorporate ‘Buffalo’: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court recently quashed proceedings under section 13(1) of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 against a person who was accused of stealing two buffalo calves allegedly for smuggling them to Bangladesh.

The single judge bench of Justice Robin Phukan observed:

“Since herein this case, ‘Buffalo’ is not incorporated in the Schedule, this court is of the view that an extended meaning cannot be given to the word ‘Calves’ so as to incorporate ‘Buffalo’ calves therein, while strict construction is required being the Act a penal statute. As held in the case of Tolaram (supra) the court has to lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty.”

One ASI of police lodged an FIR under Section 379, Section 411 of IPC and Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation [Amendment] Act, 2021 alleging that while he was conducting Naka checking at NH 31, intercepted one vehicle which was coming from Kherbari Border area of Assam towards Golakganj side, and on checking the same he found two buffalo calf which were kept concealed in the ‘dickey’ of the vehicle, in a cruel manner fastening their legs with rope.

It was stated that the ASI seized the vehicle and prepared a seizure list in the presence of the petitioner and another person. He further alleged that the buffalo calf were stolen from border area and supposed to be smuggled to Bangladesh.

The trial court took cognizance of the offences and vide impugned order dated May 6, 2022, framed charges against the petitioner under Section 379, Section 411 of IPC and Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation [Amendment] Act, 2021.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC assailing the impugned order of the Trial Court.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Schedule of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 does not include buffalo, hence, the impugned order of framing charge against the petitioner does not withstand the test of legality, propriety and correctness.

The court noted that Section 3[c] of the Act of 2021 provides that ‘Cattle’ means an animal, specified in the Schedule of the Act and the Schedule of the Act includes the following:

1. Bulls
2. Bullocks
3. Cows
4. Heifer
5. Calves

It said that an extended meaning cannot be given to the word ‘Calves’. "Indisputably, the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, is a penal statute. A statute enacting an offence or imposing a penalty is to be construed strictly. Clear language is now needed to create a crime. In a criminal statute one must be quite sure that the offence charged is within the letter of the law,” said the court

The court relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Tolaram v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 496 wherein it was held that if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty.

Thus, the bench set aside the impugned order of the trial court for being illegal. However, the court clarified petitioner can be proceeded against under Section 379 and Section 411 of the IPC.

Case Title: Mofijul Hoque v. The State of Assam & Anr.

Coram: Justice Robin Phukan

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment