Gaushala Has Locus Standi To Challenge The Orders Regarding Custody Of Cattle: Bombay High Court

In the present case, the Hatta Police Station, District Hingoli, seized the cattle that were in possession of the Gaushala, the petitioner. One, Abdul Shafi Abdul Madar Kureshi, Respondent No.2, filed an application under section 457 of the Cr.P.C. claiming to be the owner of the cattle which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aundha. Various charges under the PCA Act, Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (MAP Act) and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were made concerning the illegal transport of the cattle to be slaughtered in a cruel manner.

In a Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, which was dismissed, as it held that the Gaushala had no locus standi to file a revision application against the order of the Magistrate.

It is the case of the petitioner that even though Respondent No.2 is the owner of the cattle, he was responsible for cruelty to the same. The counsel for the petitioner argued that even though the cattle were in the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard by the Magistrate at Aundha. Counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of Manager, Pinjarapole Deudar and Anr. vs. Chakram Morarji Nat and Ors., (1991) 1 BLJR 57 where Section 35 of the PCA Act was highlighted and the powers of the Magistrate to give interim custody of the animals to a Pinjrapole were discussed. Thereafter, a catena of judgments was cited indicating that a Gaushala and Pinjrapole have the right to be heard during custody proceedings of the animals.

The case of Respondent No.2 was that he was the original owner of the animals and the Magistrate's order to hand over the animals to him was rightly directed. Respondent No.2 also claimed that he tried to execute the Magistrate's order but the petitioner refused to return the animals. The Respondent No.2 contended that after repeated attempt and failure to regain custody of the animals from the petitioner, and on the possibility that the petitioner selling the calves and misappropriating the received amount, he lodged a complaint at the Sengaon police station.

The court directly went into the question as to whether the Gaushala could challenge the order of the Magistrate. The court cited Section 8 of the MAP Act as amended in 2015. On reference to the proviso to Section 8, the court maintained that pending trial when the cattle are placed in interim custody of an organisation, the accused can be made liable to pay to such organisation for the maintenance of the cattle till the custody is handed over ultimately.

The court noted that since the cattle were given to the petitioner's custody, it was an adverse party that deserved to be heard as per the principles of natural justice. The court cited two judgments, State Bank of India vs. Rajendra Kumar Singh and others (AIR 1969 SC 401) and Basappa Durgappa Kurubar and others vs. The State of Karnataka and another, (1977 CRI.L.J. 1541) to drive home the point that even though the statute does not provide for it, if a party is adversely affected, a notice must be issued or a hearing must be given to the party as per the principles of natural justice.

The court held that the dismissal of the revision application by the Additional Sessions Judge in limine was unjustifiable. The court recommended that the Additional Sessions Judge could have sent the matter back to the Magistrate, and after the petitioner was heard, the order could have been passed appropriately. The court accordingly held:

"….in view of the change in the provisions by way of amendment in the Acts, definitely, a right is given to the Panjarpole or Gaushala. Therefore, learned Magistrate, in the present case, ought to have called upon the custodian of the cattle to put forth its say. That opportunity needs to be given here also."

The court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and ordered the Magistrate to hear the petitioner before deciding the application under Section 457 of the Cr. P.C.

CASE: GORAKSHANARTH AADIWASI SEVABHAVI SANSTHA vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO: 1026 OF 2020]

CORAM: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi

COUNSELS: Adv. J. S. Kini h/f Adv. J. V. Deshpande and Adv. B. N. Magar,

APP, Adv. R. P. Gaur,

Adv. R. J. Nirmal.