[Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act] No Absolute Bar Against Interim Release Of Seized Cattle To Accused-Owner: Orissa High Court

While interpreting the provisions of the statute and the Rules, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik said, “…the animals may even be released in favour of the owner despite a conviction if there is no previous antecedent or he does not have any such past conduct or official record of his character which may influence the court not to handover the animals as there may be a possibility of being further exposed to cruelty.”

Factual Background

In 2022, some cattle were rescued while being transported allegedly for illegal slaughtering without proper care and arrangement of water, food and medical aid. The local police seized the cattle and handed them over to the petitioner, a Gaushala, for immediate care and maintenance as the animals were in extremely weak and miserable condition.

In the meantime, the accused filed a case before the court of the SDJM, Bhadrak for release of the cattle in his favour claiming himself as its owner. An order was passed by the SDJM releasing the seized cattle and custody was granted to the accused. A revision filed by the petitioner against the order before the Sessions court was dismissed. 

Contentions of Parties

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Sections 11 and 35 of the Act have not been duly considered by the courts below. It was submitted that Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules are to be read carefully with a purposive interpretation.

It was contended that during the pendency of the litigation, custody of the seized animals has to be given to an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organization or Gaushala. Thus, the cattle could not have been released in favour of the accused in the instant case.

On the other hand, the accused justified the release of the seized cattle by contending that he had purchased and was transporting it in a vehicle to a registered firm named ‘Faizan Diary Firm’ in support of which necessary proof was submitted.

It was further contended that there has been due compliance of the provisions of the Rules and as the cost was deposited by the accused in the account of the petitioner towards expenses incurred in the maintenance of the cattle from the date of taking its zima and on execution of indemnity bond with other conditions, the release was lawful and needs no interference.

Court’s Ruling

The court said the decision with regard to custody of seized animals entirely depends on the conduct and character of the accused responsible for the cattle and interim custody may be disallowed if the court finds that there is a possibility of further cruelty to the animals if they are handed over to the accused.

“The disposal of the animals is not prohibited either at the instance of its owner and it would amount to an offence and he would be punishable, if it established that at the time of such disposal, such animals suffered pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment,” the court added.

The court categorically held that the Act does not prescribe any specific bar against interim release and custody of the animals rescued and recovered in favour of its owner. It said,

“In fact, authority has been provided to a Magistrate to detain the cattle at an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organization or Gaushala which is discretionary in nature in view of Rule 3(b) of the Rules, a provision related to custody of such animals pending litigation.”

The court said that to claim that there is an absolute bar against interim release of the animals in favour of the owner pending litigation or at the end of trial on conviction is not acceptable as the same is not contemplated under either the PCA Act or the Rules.

“Rather discretionary power has been conferred on the Magistrate to deal with such release of animals depending on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and may even exercise the jurisdiction to direct its release in favour of the owner even though he is prima facie responsible for treating the animals in a manner which amounts to cruelty under the PCA Act on a subjective satisfaction that such release is unlikely to subject the animals to further cruelty,” the court observed.

Having regard for the facts and the position of law, the court imposed certain conditions for further retention of custody of the animals by the accused and partially quashed the impugned order of the Sessions Court.

Case Title: Gau Gyan Foundation ‘Rudrashram Gaushala’ v. The State of Odisha & Anr.

Case No.: CRLMC No. 1192 of 2022

Judgment Dated: 7^th February 2023

Coram: R.K. Pattanaik, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Saraf, Advocate & Associates, Mr. Nilaya Kanta Rout, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC & Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate for O.P. No.2

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 20