GAUMATA - ITS ROLE IN INDIAN CULTURE ECONOMY &HEALTH: Animal Safety Law Guide of Karnataka

SNo		PARTICULARS	PageNo
1	Preface			1
2	कसाईखाना विरोध : एक सोच			2
3	Karnataka State Goseva Ayog: Constitution			5
4	Karnataka State Goseva Ayog: Inspection Report			7
5	Action plan			10
6	Crime chart			13
7	F.I.R Cr PC Code 154. Information in cognizable cases			13
8	Model (F.I.R):First Information Report			14
9	CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION U/S 397 OF THE Cr.PC			15
10	AN ADVICE & APPEAL –Police & Prosecution			17
11	Constitution of India – Provisions			18
12	The Code of Criminal Prodedure (Cr.P.C)			19
13	Indian Penal code (I P C )			22
14	Prevention of Crulety to Animal Act, 1960 CHAPTER III CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CHAPTER IV TRANSPORT OF CATTLE Performa for Certificate of fitness to travel – Cattle Form for Certificte of fitness for transport of animals PCA (SLAUGHTER HOUSE) RULES, 2001 PCA ESTABLISHMENT & REGULATION OFSPCA)RULES, 2001			24 26 27 28 30 35
15	KARNATAKA STATE ACTS & RULES Karnataka Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959 Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter & Cattle Preservation,1964 A.P.M.C. ACT & RULES CIR. Sl. No. KM33:RULE:99 DT.16.4.1999			38 40 42 42 46
16	Hon’ble Supreme Court Directions No to sacrifice on Bakar id day SC.CA6790/1983 Dire. of eviction of GOMALA SC.CA1132/2011 Reference Cases from different courts on connected Cases Dir. on Interim Custody to Panjrapole SC. CA 283-287/2002 SC. CA 555 of 1989 SC . CA 68-78 of 1991			47 54 59 60 60 61
17	Hon’ble Karnataka High court directions Crl.P No.3563/2014 Mys. Pinj. Society Vs Javgal PS & others Crl.P /1997 Crl.P 1831/2003 Crl.P No. 521of 1999 Crl.P No. 2580f 1998 on rejecting Auction of seized cattle			61 64 67 68 71

PREFACE

2nd Addition of Animal Safety Law Guide of Karnataka is in your hands. There are several Acts and Rules providing legal safety to Speechless Animals in our Nation but ignorance and non implementation has become distarous.

More than 50 Lakh Cattle are illegally transported with in Karnataka and to Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Maharashtra & Tamilnadu. A estimated yearly RS.30,000 Crore worth of ilegal trade is a big dent to Karnataka GDP, Exchequer, Health and employment.

Presence of Agro Produce Marketing, Animal Husbandry, Transport, Forest, Revenue, Food and Adultration, Municipalities, POLICE etc Departments can be felt but normally animal safety and implementation of relevent provisions is seen neglected.

There is not a single Inter State Checkpost in Karnataka & other State borders making the illegal trade unchecked. In spite of being scheduled commodity in APMC Act open violation ie s seen in 134+ APMC yards.

As per Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules each Cattle shall be given 2 Sq.Meter Space in a vehicle and if implemented, 3-6 Cattle can only be loaded BUT you can see 40-45 loaded in medium Vehicle in open visible violation of Not only Motor Vehicle Rules but also of PCA Act. Karnatak Prevention of cow slaughter Act etc.

Hon’ble Supreme court and Karnatak High Court has given directions that interim Custody of Cattle shall be given to Panjrapoles Goshaslas till the Case is decided BUT you can see the release orders in favor of accused time and again as if prosecution is ignorent of these DIRECTIONS.

“Animal Safety Law Guide of Karnataka” was published in 2002 to create AWARENESS among all concerned and for Animal Lovers to know their rights and duties. The GUIDE was accredited by many Honorable Courts, Prosecution, Advocate, Police officials and Animal Activists.

Change is the Course of Nature and we shall alwayse be ready to update ourselves and I hopy that 2^nd ADDITION will fulfill the well needed requirement of consolidated information.With request for your good wishes and time to time guiance and up dates

Dr. SK Mittal

B.Com (Hons) LLM, P.hD

कसाईखाना विरोध : एक सोच

कसाईखाना विरोध एक बहुत संवेदनशील विषय है और प्राणीरक्षकों को उद्द्वेलित करता रहा है. गत कुछ वर्षों से केंद्रीय सरकार खुले हाथों से आधुनिक यांत्रिक कसाईखानों को वित्तीय सहायता कर रही है. और पुराने कसाईखानों को नगर से बाहर लगाने के नाम पर घिनोनी प्राणीहत्या का जाल बुना जा रहा है. स्थिति :

· अवैधानिक कसाईखानों को रोकने और प्राणी जीवन को बचाने के लिए कठोर केंद्रीय और राज्यों के नियम हैं. लेकिन कसाई सविधान के मुलभुत सिधान्तो का आश्रय लेकर विभिन्न न्यायालयों से अपने पक्ष में रोक (stay ) ले आते हैं. राज्यों के नगरपालिका अधिनियमों में कसाईखाना बनाने का भी प्रवाधान है.

· नगरपालिकाओं के कसाईखाने सामयिक अनुबंध पर चलने को दे दिए जाते है इतने कम पैसे में दे दिए जाते हैं जिसमे अर्ध कालिक सफाई कर्मचारी भी रखना संभव नहीं होता उन पैसो की भी वसूली सरकार नहीं कर पाती।यह कसाईखाने अमूनन गैरक़ानूनी गतिविधियों में लिप्त पायेगए हैं

· माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेशानुआर, लेखक ने भारतीय जीव जंतु कल्याण मंडली (AWBI ) के कर्णाटक और केरल प्रभारी के नाते, कुछ वर्षो पहिले केरल और कर्णाटक के कसाईखानों का निरक्षण किया था जिसमे इन कसाईखानों की त्रुटियाँ और अपने विचार देश के समक्ष रखने का अवसर मिला था.

· डॉक्टरी जाँच के लिए पुनः: सरकार के चिकित्सकों पर निर्भर हुआ जाता है. मेरे निरक्षण के दौरान मैंने पशु और मांस का चिकित्सक निरक्षण बिलकुल ही नहीं पाया था। इसका नतीजा, जो खाद्य जनता के लिए होता है वह रोग ग्रस्त पाया जाता है

· नया कसाईखाना बनाते हुए सरकारों और नगर पालिकाओं को प्राणी रक्षकों का विरोध झेलना पड़ता है जिसका नतीजा उपभोक्ता को भुगतना पड़ता है. यह एक सचाई है की देश की बहुत्तम संख्या मांसाहारी है लेकिन यह भी सत्य है की अधिकतम गौमांस का सेवन नहीं करती।सुवर का मांस भी आमतौर पर उपयोग में नही आता.

· यह भी सत्य है कि कसाई खाना अपने साथ प्रदूषण, बीमारी, चारित्र्यहिनता, जल की कमी, दुर्गन्ध आदि विभिन्न दोष ले कर आता है.

· अहिंसक जनता के सामने से काटने को जा रहे प्राणी और काटने के बाद मांस के दर्शन उनके धर्म, सोच, विचारों को आघात पहुंचाते है.

· पशु -प्राणी प्रकृति की देन और रचना है. इनका वध प्रकृति को आघात पहुँचाता है और देश की कृषि व् ग्रामीण रोजगार को अलाभकारी बना देताहै। मै ऐसे कितने ही तथ्य आपके सामने रख सकता हूँ जो कसाईखाना लगाने के विरोध में जाते हैं.

· देश के विधि विधान इस विषय पर मौन नहीं हैं. हमारे न्यायालय भी इस विषय का संज्ञान बारम्बार लेचुके हैं. क्या है यह विधि विधान ?

१. केंद्रीय प्रदूषण नियामक मंडली (CPCB ) ५. 2. २०१४ नियम ३ अनुसार नया कसाईखाना नगर सीमा के बाहर और हवाई अड्डे से दूर होना चाहिए। जल और मल निकासी का साधन इसका मुख्य विषय होगा।कसाईखाना व्यवसाय अतिप्रदूषित श्रंखला(Red Zone)में रखागया है।

२.प्राणी क्रूरता निवारण अधिनियम (कसाईखाना ) नियम २००१ नियम ३ " नगरपालिका या केंद्रीय सरकार द्वारा निर्धारित इस उद्देश्य के लिये अन्य स्थानीय संस्था स्थानीय जनता की जरुरत के अनुसार कसाईखाने में प्रति दिन अधितम् कितने प्राणिओ का वध हो, निर्धारित करेगी।

३.भारतीय सविंधान की मुलभूत सिद्धांतधारा५१-अ(g),धारा २४३(W) १. Schedule १२, व् धारा सख्या २१,राज्यों को निर्देश सिदधांत ४८ (a),आदि विभिन्न समय पर माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा स्थापित किये जा चुके हैं.

४.मुख्य न्यायधीश माननीय रमेश चन्दर लाहोटी और ६ न्यायाधीशों की सवैधानिक बेंच ने २००५ में निर्णय देते हुए कसायिओं के सवैधानिक मुलभुत अधिकार को निरस्त किया था. श्री लक्ष्मी नारायण मोदी / भारत सरकार व् अन्य के केस WP ३०९/२००३ में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने राज्यों में कसाईखाना समिति के निर्माण का आदेश दिया और विभिन्न तिथिओं पर सुनवाई कर सुन्दर निर्णय दिए गए हैं. जिनका सारांश: मुख्यत: शहर के अंदर चलने वाले कसाईखानो को नगर से बाहर करना, जिस से नगरवासिओं को जल मल निकासी पर पड़े हुए भर से राहत मिले, तथा असवैधानिक कसाईखानों को बंद किया जाए, आदि है.

५. कर्नाटक उच्च न्यायालय ने WP ४४५२९ /२००१ में कसाई संघ की प्रार्थना निरस्त करते हुए मैसूर महानगरपालिका को आदेश दिया था क़ि कसाईखाना अगर बनाये तो नागरिको के स्वास्थ्य और धार्मिक भावना को ठेस ना पहुंचे,इसे ध्यान रखा जाए.

६. कुछ दिवस पूर्व आँध्रप्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय ने राजमुंदरी क्षेत्र की एक जनहित याचिका का संज्ञान लेते हुए कसाईखानों की क्षमता पर प्रश्न खड़े किये हैं.

७. देखा यह जा रहा है क़ि जनता के कीमती कर को, जन भावना और विभिन्न वैधानिक नियमो को आघात पहुंचा कर केंद्रीय सरकार, राज्य सरकार और नगर पालिकाएं कुछ लोगो के लाभ के लिए, निर्यात के लिए कसाईखानों का निर्माण नियोजित करती हैं. जन मानस में इसकी विद्रोह उमड़ता है और एक लम्बे न्यायिक, आंदोलन, आक्रोश का प्रारम्भ हो जाता है. इस की आड़ में असवैधानिक चल रहे कसाईखानों की और सरकारों का ध्यान ही नहीं जाता और उपभोक्ता रोग ग्रस्त मांस खाने को विवश होता है.

आज जरुरत है, इस विषय पर गहन विचार की, समस्या के समाधान की और बढ़ने की.

कुछ तथ्य : जैसे :

· नगरपालिकाओं को निर्यात के लिए कसाईखाना बनाने का अधिकार नहीं है।

· नगरपालिकाओं को नगर के अंदर कसाईखाना बनाने का अधिकार नहीं है

· नगरपालिका और जिला प्रसासन को असवैधानिक कसाईखानों को पहिले बंद करवाना चाहिए

· नगरपालिका को विभिन्न स्वीकृति व् छूट सरकारी तंत्र के भाग होने के कारण प्राप्त हो जाती हैं नही तो २०-२५ विभाग विधिविधान पालन करवाने को आगे आ जाते है

· नगर पालिकाओं के पास स्थानीय जनता की मांस की जरुरत केआंकड़े ही नहीं पाये जाते है जोकि कसाईखाने की जरुरत है या नही, या कितना बड़ा और कौनसे प्राणियों का जैसे मुस्लिम भाई सुवर का मांस खाना पाप समझते हैं,अधिकतम हिन्दू, सिख गौमांस छूना भी पापसमझते है.वैष्णव और जैन भाई का तो मांस देखने मात्र से ही भोजनव्यर्थ होजाता है.

· नगरपालिका को क्षेत्र में विभिन्न प्राणिओं की संख्या, उनके कृषि व् अन्य व्यवसायों में उपयोग आदि को भी संज्ञान में चाहिए

· नगरपालिका दायित्व बहुत विस्तृत होता है और विभिन्न नगर समस्याओं से झूझना पड़ता है इसलिए उसे इस घिनोने जन विरोधी, प्रदूषण कारक कार्य से बचना चाहिए

· नगरपालिका अगर कराती भी है तो विभिन्न वैधानिक नियमो और सर्वोच्च व् उच्च न्यायालयों के निर्देशो का पालन सुनिश्चित करना चाहिए। जनता के लिए होने वाले कार्य में जनता के सामने रखना और बहुमत निर्णय का पालन करना चाहिए

· नगरपालिका को निर्णय लेने से प्रथम अपने क्षेत्र के उपभोक्ता जरुरत, वर्तमान उपलब्धता, आदि का आंकलन करना एक वैधानिक जरुरत है

· केंद्रीय व् राज्य सरकार और विशेषत: खाद्य प्रसरण उद्योग(Food Processing Industry) मंत्रालय व् बैंकों को अनुमति और अनुदान आदि पारित करने से प्रथम सभी विधि विधानों का पालन सुनिश्चित करना चाहिए।

· कसाईखानों पर राज्य की समिति,जोकी मा.सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के आदेश और मार्गदर्शन में कार्यरत है और जिसका संयोजक भूतपूर्व जिला न्यायाधीश सुनिश्चित किया गया है उसकी अनुशंषा और सामयिक निरक्षण अति आवश्यक है गैरक़ानूनी कसाईखानो के जाल को तोडना भी इस समिति की जवाबदारी है. मुझे विस्वास है की अगर उपरोक्त का पालन किया जाये तो कसाईखानों की बाढ़ को रोक जा सकेगा। देश और जनता का विशाल धन बचेगा करोडो प्राणिओ की रक्षा होगी, कृषि, ग्रामीण विकास को नयी गति मिलेगी। देश में गुलाबी नहीं- हरी क्रांति आएगी

डॉ.श्रीकृष्ण मित्तल

Karnataka State Goseva Ayog: Constitution

Government of Karnataka constituted Karnataka State Goseva Ayog vide Gazzate Notification No. Dt.5.2.2013 and apart from (1)Principle Secretary Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, (2)Revenue, (3)Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, (4)Home, (5)Animal Husbandry commissioner, (6)Agriculture Commissioner, (7)Director APMC & animal Husbandry & Vet. Srvices(Member Secretary) etc as Ex officio Members

" In compliance of the directive principle 48 of the Constitution of India “The State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle."

Karnataka State Goseva Ayog is being constituted & notified on 5^th of Feb., 2013.There are 11 Non Government and 9 officials Ex officio members nominated to the Ayog viz. .

1. Pri. Secretary Animal Hy & Fisheries

2. PrincipleSecretaryRuralDev.Pan. Raj

3. Principle Secretary Home

4. PrincipleSecretary Urban Development

5. Principle Secretary Revenue

Commissioner Agriculture

6. Commissioner Animal Hus. &Vet Serv.

7. Director APMC

8. DirectorAnimalHus(MemberSecretar

On 15^th Feb., 2013 11 Non Government Members were nominated out of which one (Srimati Bharati Patil) resigned as she was moving out of country and one (Sri Uttam Chand Duggad) expired. Now :

1. Sri MB Puranik(Chairman)Mangalore

2. Dr.SK Mittal Mysore

3. SriUttamchandChhajed Bangalore

4. SriBS Manjunath SwamyBangalore

5. SriDayananda Swami Bangalore

6. SriS.Shivram Mandya

7. SriDharmaPrashad Shimoga

8. Sri Srinivasa H. Biradara Patel Mudhol(Bagalkot)

9. SriShivappaKarappaKadapattiJamkhandi(Bagalkot)

The Function of Ayog as notified by the Government are here as under

Clause 11: The Ayog shall discharge following functions for the betterment of he livestock in the State namely:

1. Clause 10: Registration of Institutions in Karnataka is the 1^st object which will enable the Ayog to extend helping hand towards them

2. to ensure protection provided to Cattle under State Acts, Union acts, Laws, for the time being in force.

3. And to ensure proper and timely implementation of the Laws and to propose remedial measure to concerned Departments of the State Government or any body or Authority owned or controlled by the State Government as is responsible for such implementation to make the more effective

4. proper and timely implementation of programs of the State Government under present and future Goshala Development Scheme;

5. to ensure care and management of cattle seized for violation of any enactment for the time being in force

6. to ensure proper care and management of infirm and aged cattle maintained by any institution;

7. to supervise and inspect the institutions registered and proposed to be registered with the Ayog

8. to suggest such measures which may be helpful in strengthening of he institutions which are economically weak’

9. To give financial assistance to the institutions subject to such terms and conditions specified by the State Government from time to time

10. to enquire into complaints in the functioning of any institution;

11. to perform such other functions as may be specified to it by the State Government

12. to assist in implementation of the Act and such other Laws to be enacted in respect of Cattle welfare

13. to take custody of the agricultural Cattle sized under the Act and to entrust them to the nearest Goshala, Gosadan or any other Cattle protection institution or to any person pending the disposal of the prosecution proceedings;

14. to promote educational activities in Primary and Higher studies on Safety Laws, preservation, Goshala management and other related activities;

15. to participate in State, National and International level on animal welfare activities and to attract contributions and suggestions;

16. to implement programs entrusted by Government or non Government agencies

17. to appoint Honorary Animal welfare Officers with such regulations as may be issued by the Government from time and such honorary Animal Welfare Officer shall work for implementation of he Act and co ordinate with concerned authorities and departments

Karnataka State Goseva Ayog: Inspection Report

Karnataka State is blessed with number of famous cow breeds like Amrutmahal, Deveni, Kangyam Haalidkar, Krishnavally, Malanad Gidda, Khillar etc famous for high quality milk and draught power. As per Live Stock Census 2007, there were Cattle 10,502,520 & Buffaloes 4,326,980.making Karnataka 10^th State in livestock and contributing app.3% to our state GDP.

A great source of Employment and Rural Development Karnataka is one of the leading States in milk production producing 32,00,000 Kg per day. Currently the State ranks second in milk production in the country. The Co-operative societies model has been very successful in the State.

The Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) is the apex body of the milk co-operative societies procuring millions of Liter every day. There are 13 district level co-operative union with 11,036 primary milk co-operative societies. If properly developed, it can be number one State and can provide employment to millions and a vital tool in Rural development.

This app 15 million Cattle heards not only produce Milk BUT give birth to app. 5. million Calfs every year. It is directly related with our increasing Milk Production. We have app. average 150 Ltr Milk per cattle per lactation. That means for every 150 Ltr Milk we get one Cow (He or She) or Buffalo(He or She. And now it is a matter of simple airthmatic that how many Cattle births are taking in our State and where this increase is going. So the Report...............................

Statement of Cow & Buffalo on the basis of Livestock Census 2007

As per the information geathered during visit to several Districts, there is certain short fall of 15-25% during 2007-8 to 2012-13. Instead of any growth. Following details will confirm that more than 50 Lakh Cow, Calf & Buffalo are illegally transported to State & Inter State Slaughter houses every year

· As per Live Stock Sample Survey State was possessing below 1 year female 18.99Lakhs 1 to 3 years 15.14 lakhs = 34.14. Lakhs and Male 1 year 8.04 & 1 to 3 years5.62 = 13.66 lakhs

· This figure shows the quantum of new Birth every year and if we take birth of male and female equal than Female are 34.13 lakhs where as Male are only 13.66 lakhs. We can presume that app. 21 Lakh male Calveshas been sent to Slaughter houses even before their 3 year age for calf beef (Veil) and Calf leather. Same infrence can be taken that in spite of recorded births which shall be app. 55 lakhs every year, no increase is visible in live Stock.

· This fact can be proved with Datas of Milk production. It is universal truth that milk production is based on cattle birth. With out Calve birth a Cow will not give milk. State Milk production is increasing leap and bounds. KMF alone is procuring app. 54 Lakh Litre Milk per day. As per National Data in 2010-11 State produced 51,14,000 MT of Milk and average milk yeild per Cow or buffalo is app 2.4 Liter per day and per lactation of app 254 days it is app.365 Ltr or say a Calf birth is required for each 610 Kgs of milk i.e app.83.83 Lakh Calves in 18 months or say 55.89 Lakh per year.

· Our finding clear and verify that app. 50 Lakh Cow, Calves & Buffalo are going to Slaughter houses in the State and Out side the State.

· This large number of Cow Calves and Buffalos are purchsed and 90% at APMC Yards @ App. RS.5,000 per cattle or say RS. 2,500 Crore and transported to Kerala, Goa, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu & Maharashtra. This livestock generate

Beef 10,00,000 MT Beef @RS.275/- per Kg feteches App. RS.27,500 Crore

Bone 1,00,000 MT. @ RS. 30/- per Kg 300 Crore

Animal Fat 30,000 MT @ RS.100/-per Kg 300 Crore

Leather 50,00,000 @ RS.3,000/-.perPc 1,500 Crore

Blood 60,000 KL @ RS.50/- per Ltr 300 Crore

Total RS.29,900 Crore

· This Excess amount of app RS. 27,500 Crore is unchecked, untaxed, and not providing any revenue rather

· State is spending huge tax payer amount in Slaughter house opening, maintenance and in public hospitals in citizen treatment.

· Meat eaters are deprived of cheap and qualitative Beef & Meet due to illegal Inter State Transportation

· Breeders and Farmers are deprived of Quality and strudy Cattle in compitition to Slaughter and inter state demand.

· As per information Around 10% of amount is spent as bribe to different concerned Departments.

· State endevour of high milk production by spending huge subsidy, is hampering due to illegal Cattle transportation.

· Adultrated Milk made from Urea & Detergent is playing with the health of next generation

· Farmers are comitting Suside due to increased cost of Cultivation and fertilizer. Sugestion & Request

Karnataka Goseva Ayog is trying very hard to create awareness among concerned officials and request Honorable Chief Minister, Ministers, Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Principal Secretaries, Commissioners, Directors to intervene and issue necessary Directions ,

Guidelines and monitor the implementation of All Acts & Rules in letter and spirit and stop illegal Slaughter & transportation of Cattle & Carcass .

1. Animal Husbandry Department shall ensure that no Animal Health Certificates are issued in violation of above Acts & also take action/ report to concerned District officials on finding the same. Dy. Director being Member Secretary of Mysore SPCA shall convene meetings regularly. Action against persons forging and misusing AH&VS Dept. name & Seal shall be initiated.

2. APMC officials shall implement the Directions of Director APMC Circular Sl. No. KM:33Rule 99 Dt.16.4.99.

3. RTO shall check Trucks carrying Cattle in violation of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules and report the matter for seizure to nearest Police Station. Appropriate action shall be initiated against violating Vehicle & drivers.

4. Municipal Commissioner / Officials shall check illegal slaughter places in also Cattle gowdons. Municipal Health officials shall check and restrict sale of unstamped Carcass. The source of unstamped Carcass at Meat shops can lead us to illegal slaughter places.

5. Forest officials shall check the Cattle carrying trucks crossing respective Forest Areas and also on walking under Wildlife Protection Act and report to nearest Police Station if they find violation of other above Acts & rules.

6. Police officials have to play vital role. One side they shall provide required security to all concerned officials. Motivate their intelligence wing to get feedback. Act on complaint and reports from Animal lovers. Book Cases under above mentioned Acts sand Rules. Investigate the matter in depth and reach to the actual consignee and consignor.

7. All concerned Police offices shall be directed to crack down on illegal Cow and Cattle slaughter and Transportation.

8. Karnataka Police intelligence prepared list of illegal slaughter houses and must have reported on illegal transportation racket. Reports so received shall be shared & further called, particularly in interstate bordering Districts.

9. F.I.R s booked in illegal transportation shall be shared and informed to respective. R.T O with whom the vehicle is registered to initiate proceedings under Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules.

10. Responsibility shall be fixed, reviewed in district, Range & State crime review meetings and erring official shall be suitably warned / punished.

11. Animal welfare Organization and animal activists shall be provided protection and timely and effective working ensured on information provided by them shall be kept confidential.

12. Special Task force shall be constituted at least at District level

13. Cow and Cattle custody be only given to Animal Welfare Organization and not to accused in line with Honorable Supreme Court Directions

14. Investigation in booked cases shall ensure 1. Origin 2. consignor, Destination, Consignee, regularity etc.

15 Revenue officials viz. Tahasildars, Panchayat Development officials shall keep watch in their respective areas on animal related crimes, slaughter places, vehicles, meat shops and seize / report to concerned officials for necessary action.

16. Encroachment on Gomala land shall be identified and eviction proceedings shall be initiated as per Hon’ble Supreme court Directions.

17. Animal shelters/Goshala/Pinjrapole shall be developed / promoted atleast one in each Taluk.

18. Electric generation and other products be propagated by the use of Bull power, cow dung, Cow urine & Milk etc each Taluk.

I requested respected Dy. Commissioners to arrange meeting in their respective offices with CEO Zilla Panchayat, Dy.Director Animal Husbandry & his officials, Asst/ Dy. Director APMC, Superintendent of Police, RTO, Dy. Conservator of Forest, Municipal Commissioner , Members od District SPCA, Representatitives of Animal Welfare Organisations. In many districts, I visited inter state Borders, APMC Yards, Meat Markets, Slaughter places, RTO Check posts, Gaushala & Pinjrapoles etc to have fair idea…..

DR.SK Mittal.

Action plan to prevent Illegal Transportation of Cattle,

Beef, & Slaughter House

Form team of gau sevaks (hon. Animal welfare officers ) in your area , enlist their name , address, phone numbers and two photographs for issuance of identity cards arrange periodical meeting and report your activities to your organization.

Watch in your area the following record points of cattle sale for slaughter . it may be APMC yards, unregulated markets , private brokers buying cattle from villages etc. weekly shandy days

Transporting vehicles. normally we find these vehicle totally covered and repeatedly carrying cattle .watch their movement and record their make ,color and resistration numbers . place of slaughter and meet shops record their location and details of operation.

Record names, addresses and phone numbers of police station, tahshildar, subdivision assistant commissioner, asst. director animal husbandry and veterinary services, municipal health officer & commissioner, town board,R.T.O.A.P.M.C president and secretary etc

Call meeting of transporters and above officials and discuss the gravity of problem in your area and your intention of assisting them in curbing this illegal and evil start vigil in the area and when find illegal movement of cattle whether by vehicle or on walk, inform police station in writing with copy to A.H and V.S office for immediate cognizance of offence and seizing the cattle and vehicle ( if any ) and arresting the accompanying persons. In case of delay or non action on their part as a vigilant citizen , stop the cattle supposed to be going for slaughter and vehical, if laoded. Make though inquiry and if you find that there is breach of any of above cited rules arrest them under code 43 ofCr .PC

Arrest by private person and procedure on such arrest. 1 : Any private person may be arrest or caused to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non bail able and cognizable offence , or any proclaimed offender and without unnecessary delay , shell make over or couse to be made over any person , so arrested to a police officer or in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody of nearest police station Lodge FIR with police in writing . your information must contain the following . your information must contain the following . your name , address, details of incident , place ,time ,number of cattle with different types ( nos.of cow , calves, she buffalo etc) . vehicle number , make and registration number , names of person as told by them and request for resistration of FIR under SEC.4,5,8,9 &11 of Karnataka prevention of cow slaughter and preservation of cattle act ,1964, cruelty to animal act .1960 SEC. 11 .IPC SEC.429 etc . insist and obtain copy of FIR and cooperate with police for mahazar after MAHAZAR police will obtain necessary orders from hon’ble court.

In case of slaughter houses and meat shops , again you have to repeat the process , call the meeting of officials and persons from slaughter houses and discuss with them the illegality of their work . as per act of 1964 cow. Caves and she circumstances . animals intended to be slaughter , to be offered at least one day prior to competent authority for issuance certificate on prescribed form with fee.

Slaughter houses has to obtain certificate from such authority or officer as the stategovernment may appoint in this behalf.

Make inquiry with local A.H&VS or municipal official about details of certified slaughter houses in your area . in most of cases we find that no certificate has been obtained. Straightway, you can write to competent authority/police informing the details & location of these illegal slaughter places. a case will be booked U/S. 4,5,7,9&11 of the act of 1964

In case of slaughter houses having certificate, arrenge visit with competent authority &/or police and request them to match the number of animals slaughtered by them with number of cattle certified by the competent authority. On finding illegal slaughter of cow , calf and she-buffalo, aodge complaint under above sections of act of 1964.

All above offences are cognizable & officer in charge of area police , on receiving your information will be registered under of SEC. 154(1) C.R.P.C

In case police still do not resister FIR inform supritendent of police by telegram and move the petition to hon’ble court under sec.200 C.R.P.C for registration of FIR and jucicial action in the matter

Do not truble innocent reares , cooperate with police and govt. officials.

Developmental work safety of life of speechless animals depends on economic viability. Come forward for their development by the use of scientific methods for increase in the milk yielding , improvement in breed , propagating for commercial use of gobra as organic compost .Mysore Pinjrapole Society ®, Akhil Karnataka gau raksha sangh® will be always keen to associate with you for this NOBLE CAUSE

Crime chart
Illegal purchase, sale transfer of cattle · Violation of Karnataka Agro Produce Marketing (Control) act · Karnataka prevention of cow slaughter and cattle preservation act,1964 · Prevention pf cruelty to animal act , 1960 & Rules · IPC.429 IPC 153-A · Karnataka Municipalities Act	Illegal slaughter of cattle · State prevention of cow slaughter and cattle preservation acts · Prevention of cruelty to animal act, 1960 · IPC . 429,IPC .153-A · State Municipalities Acts · PCA (slaughter house) rules. 2001
Illegal transportation of cattle on rail and motor vehicle · Karnataka motor vehicle rules · Indian Motor vehicle act, 1968 Sec.125 · Karnataka prevention of cow slaughter and preservation of cattle act.1964 · State Karnataka agro produce marketing( control)act · Prevention of CrueltytoAnimalact, 1960 · IPC 429 an, IPC 153-A · Transport of cattle rules, 1978 · State Forest act	Illegal Sacrifice/ Bali/ Kurbani of Cattle · IPC 429 · IPC 153 · Karnataka prevention of Animal Sacrifice Act, 1964 · Karnataka Prevention of cow slaughter and cattle preservation act · Prevention pf Cruelty to animal act , 1960 & Rules
Illegal transportation of cattle onfoot · Illegal transportation of cattle on foot Rules (PCA Act) 2002 · Karnataka prevention of cow slaughter & Cattle preservation Act. Preservation of cattle act. 1964 · Karnataka agro produce marketing control actPrevention of cruelty to animal act . 1960 · IPC429 and IPC 153-A · P.C.A(transport ofcattle on foot)Rules, 2001 · State Forest Acts	Punishments Conviction , arrest, imprisonment, and seizure of cattle, seizure of vehicle , cancellation of permits,cancellation of driving licence, fines, closer of premises,loss of respect , disturbance of communal harmony , curse of speechless animal ,and financial losses
Government agencies & Organizations functioning against above crime Karnataka State Goseva Ayog, Govt. of Karnataka, Karnataka State Animal Welfare Board,Mysore Pinjrapol Society ® Akhil Karnataka Gauraksha Sangh®, BJP Cow Development Cell,, Animal Welfare Board of India District SPCAs Animal Welfare Organizations Goshala, Pinjrapoles and N.G.O

First Information Report (F.I.R)

Cr PC Code 154. Information in cognizable cases.

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer Subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence A Complaint in any allegation made orally or in writing with a view to his taking action under the code of criminal Procedure , that some person, known or unknown, has committed an offence.

1. The law has not provided any particular format for drafting a complaint But it is necessary to allege that an offence has been committed. It is also expected that complainant must state all ingredients consisting the alleged offence.

2. First Information Report (FIR) are filed at Police Station when you wish yo push down in record an incident which you wish to bring to the notice of Police and at the same time seek their help in solving it.

3. Make a detailed description of the Crime.

4. Request the Police Station that you wish to file a FIR in Police Register or you write it on a plain paper in duplicate.

5. Police Station official is responsible for making all the necessary entries.& providing you the copy of F.I.R. and to keep the Magistrate of the area informed about the Report and the progress

Model (F.I.R):First Information Report to be submitted to concerned Police Station /Post

Police Station Officer / Circle Inspector/Sub Inspector Place____________

__________Police Station/Post/Choki/Naka……. Date

Time_______

Sub: First Information Report under IPC 429, Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,1964, PCA Act Sec 11, Karnataka Police Act, Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules and other related Acts & Rules

Sir,

I,____________________S/O_______________aged__________

Resident of ________ hereby inform you , as under:

That I am member /animal activist working for cow safety. I got information from reliable sources / while on road I saw a vehicle carrying number of Cattle. I followed the vehicle No___________ / group walking and stopped the same at___________(place)

On enquiry I was informed that Cattle are being brought from ___________and carried to ____(destination) and reasoned to believe that these Cattle are going for slaughter.

On verifying, cow, Calves were found under transportation in most cruel manner . Their mouth were tightened without providing sufficient space. Transporter / owner were unable to show any permission / Permit nor any Certificate as deemed necessary to be issued by competent Authority.

In first vision and fact it is with out any doubt that these cattle are being transported in violation of provisions of Prevention of Cruelty Act, Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, IPC 429, Motor Vehicle Act & State Motor Vehicle Rules. And also in violation of Karnataka Prev. of Cow slaughter Act etc.

I request you to book a case for the violation of all above Acts & Rules, seize Cattle in transportation & save their precious life and also the Vehicle and necessary arrest. I will be available to co operate during the investigation and prosecution.

Thanking you

(Signature)

Complainant Name &Address

Phone / Mobile numbers etc

(It can be modified as CRIME CHART and local requirements)

PERFORMA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT-----------

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION /20…

Between

Sri Petitioner

AND

Sri……………. Respondents

THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 397(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The Revision Petition has challenged the order of the trial Court Dated------------ in Crime NO…………../……..(Court CR No…………../………. On the file of Pri. Civil Judge and JMFC …………on the grounds that the order of the Trial Court is illegal, perverse and against to the well settled principles of law

2. The Revision Petition has got a good case on merits and there is every possibility of success in this revision petition .

3. The order of the learned Magistrate amounts to miscarriage of justice, if, the Stay Order is not granted the Revision Petitioner will be put to greater hardship and if stay order is granted no prejudice would be caused to the other side.

Wherefore the foregoing reasons the Revision Petitioner humbly pray that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an Order of Stay , staying the operation of the Order Dated……in Court Crime no…………….(Police Crime No…………….. on the File of the JMFC………. Pending disposal of the revision Petition in the ends of Justice and equity.

Place……….. Advocate for the Petitioner

Date:-

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT …..

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION ………../20…..

BETWEEN:

Sri………………………..S/O…………….

Aged………….

(Name of Organization) …….Petitioner

AND

1. ………………... 2. ……………3. State by ………….Police

Represented by Public Prosecutor…………

THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION U/S 397 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE THE PETITIONER NAMED ABOVE BEGS TO STATE AS FOLLOWS

1. The address of the Petitioner is as mentioned in the cause title and that of his counsel Sri…………………………………………….for the purpose of issue Court notices, summons, etc. The address of the respondents is as mentioned in the cause title for the aforesaid purpose.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated …………….in Cr. No………. / (Court C.R. No. ……)on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC ……………..having no other alternative and speedy remedy preferred this revision petition before this Hon’ble Court

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The ……………..Police have registered a case in Crime No……. against the accused for an offence punishable u/s 4,5,8,9 and 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow slaughter and cattle Preservation Act, 1964, Section 11 (1)(E) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, read with 34 IPC and on the basisof the complaint lodged by CPI ……….. Police Station have seized the… No. Cow / Cattle and reported to the Learned Magistrate and with the permission of the Court the said animals have been sent to the Petitioner’s Society in Interim Custody. The Respondent …also made an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking interim Custody of the said Cow / Cattle. After the contest the Trial court rejected Petitioner’s application / accepted Respondent’s application and allowed the release in the favor of respondent(s). Being aggrieved by the said rejection order / Release Order the Revision petitioner preferred this Revision Petition before the Hon’ble Court on the following

GROUNDS

4. The impugned order of the Trial Court on 457 application is illegal perverse and against to the settled principles of Law.

5. The Trial Court rejected the application of the Petitioner without considering the legal aspects as well as guidelines of Honorable supreme Court and Honorable Karnataka high Court at Bangalore in many judgements.

6. The Trial Court blindly rejected the application / issued Release with out considering the materials on record.

7. The Trial Court ought to have disallowed the respondents application but allowed with out appreciation of facts, materials and evidences on record which is illegal and perverse.

8. The Trial court allowed the counter application which is illegal and perverse.

9. The Trial Court has ignored the legal aspects which is illegal and perverse.

10. Viewed from any angle the trial court is not correct and on the other hand the Trial court to have released the Cattle in favor of the applicant but rejected the application is illegal and perverse.

11. The Petition is in time

12. The court fee of RS…………is hereby paid over this petition

Wherefore for the foregoing reasons the petitioner humbly pray tat the Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the Order dated……………in Crime No………….(Court C R ……..) on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Arsikere and order to continue the interim Custody of Cattle pending disposal of Cr. No………….of ……..Police Station in the ends of Justice and equity.

Place; Adv. For Petitioner

Date……………..

POLICE - AN ADVICE & APPEAL

Execution of different legal provisions is the responsibility of Police Department. On receiving complaint a case be booked in effective sections and Acts.

Serch,Seizure & arrest and production of accused and material to be produced particularly animals for interim custody to animal welfare organizations (AWO, Pinjrapol, Gaushala) as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court & Karnataka high court.

Effective investigation is the essence apart from proper guidance and request to prosecution (Public Prosecuter – APP) about maintenance of interim custody with AWO till the Case is decided in the Courts.

PROSECUTION – AN ADVICE & APPEAL

The effort of Animal activists, Police and other departments are reduced to disheartened ACTION due to non effective presentation, objection, resistance of prosecution in Courts.

Question of Custody of animals has been delt and directions from time to time has been given by Hon’ble Supreme Court & High courts which are binding on lower courts . Same are attached for the reference in the GUIDE.

In case of release of live stock from interim custody question of maintinence Cost arrises. Again hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the same. Prosecution shall support the demand as raised by interim custody holder.

Same vehicles are seen operating in this heinous crime with changed ownership. In case of release of vehicle

1) Request to Court for marking the Registration book with restriction of vehicle ownership transfer till the pendency of case.

2) Concerned RTO where the vehicle is registered shall be informed about the violation of Indian Motor Vehicle Act and Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules and ACTION initiation

Constitution of India - Provisions

Our constitution provides complete security to our livestock, Environment, flora & Fauna

51A Fundamental duties.It shall be the duty of every citizen of India—a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;

(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;

(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;

(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;

(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of Endeavour and achievement;

(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.

47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.—The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall Endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.

48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.—The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

48A. Protection andimprovement of environment andsafeguarding of forests and wild life.—The State shall Endeavour to protect & improve the environment & to safeguard the forests and wild life of the Country

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P C)

Code 43. Arrest by private person and procedure on such arrest.

(1) Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station.

(2) If there is reason to believe that such person comes under the provisions of section 41, a police officer shall re-arrest him.

(3) If there is reason to believe that he has committed a non-cognizable offence, and he refuses on the demand of a police officer to give his name and residence, or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he shall be dealt with under the provisions of section 42; but if there is no sufficient reason to believe that he has committed any offence, he shall be at once released.

154. Information in cognizable cases.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

157. Procedure for investigations.

(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may by general of special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:

Provided that-

(a) When information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the office in-charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;

(b) If it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.

(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements to that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.

173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.

(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.

(2) (i) as soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-

(a) the names of the parties;(b) the nature of the information;(c) The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;(e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.

(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report, shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.

(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.

(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report-

(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation

(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witness.

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the sub-matter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).

(8) Notwithstanding in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provisions of' sub-section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-sec (2)

190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, specially empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-

(a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) Upon it police report of such facts;

(c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.

191. Transfer on application of the accused.When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of sub-section (I) of section 190, the accused shall, before any evidence is taken, be informed that he is entitled to have the case inquired into or tried by another Magistrate, and if the accused or any of the accused, if there be more than one, objects to further proceedings before the Magistrate taking cognizance, the case shall ba transferred to such other Magistrate as may be specified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in this behalf.

192. Making over of cases to Magistrates.(1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking Cognizance of all offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to and competent Magistrate subordinate to him.

(2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to such other competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by general or special order, specify, and thereupon such Magistrate may hold the inquiry or trial.
Code:200.Examinationofcomplainant. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a court has made the complaint; or(b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry, or trial to another Magistrate under section 192:Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

301.Appearance by public prosecutors.(1)ThePublic Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal-

(2) If any, such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.

451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.

When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay , or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of .

Explanation. For the purposes of this

section, "property" includes-(a) Property of any kind or document which is produced before the court or which is in its custody.(b) Any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony

¹[153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—

(a) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place or birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) Commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, 2[or]

²[(c) Organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence of knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,] Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Offence committed in place of worship, etc.— (2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.]

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by any Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.

Para II Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.

Section 295 A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of ²[citizens of India], ³[by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ⁴[3 years],or with fine, or with both.]

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.

Section 429. Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees

Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Bail able—Tri able by any Magistrate of the first class—Compoundable by the owner of the cattle or animal with the permission of the court.

Prevention of Crulety to Animal Act, 1960

CHAPTER III CRUELTY TO ANIMALS GENERALLY

11. (1) if 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; or

(b) *(employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease) infirmity, wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, beingthe owner, permits any such unfit animal to be employed; or

(c) wilfully and unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injurious substance to **(any animal) or wilfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any such drug or substance to be taken by ***(any animal;) or

(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or

(e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or

(f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; or

(g) being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog habitually chained up or kept in close confinement; or

(h) being the owner of (any animal) fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or

(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which tender it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation, thirst; or

(j) wilfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner, to go at large in any street, while the animal is affected with contagious or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the owner, to die in any street; or

(k) offers for sale or without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reasons of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment; or

*{(l) mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner or;}

**[(m) solely with a view to providing entertainment-

(i) confines or causes to be confined any animal (including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object or prey for any other animal; or

(n) *** (XXXX) organizes, keeps uses or acts in the management or, any place for animal fighting or for

the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes; or

(o) promotes or takes part in any shooting match or competition wherein animals are releasedfrom captivity for the purpose of such shooting;Power of court to deprive person convicted of ownership of animal

29. (1) If the owner of any animal is found guilty of any offence under this Act, the court upon his conviction thereof, may, if it thinks fit, in addition to any other punishment make an order that the animal with respect to which the offence was committed shall be forfeited to Government and may, further, make such order as to the disposal of the animal as it thinks

fit under the circumstances.

(2) No order under sub section (1) shall be made unless it is shown by evidence as to a previous

conviction under this Act or as to the character of the owner or otherwise as to the treatment

of the animal that the animal if left with the owner, is likely to be exposed to further cruelty.

(3) without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the court may also orderthat a person convicted of an offence under this Act shall, either permanently or during suchperiod as is fixed by the order, beperiod as is fixed by the order, be prohibited from having the custody of any animal of anykind whatsoever, or as the court thinks fit

of any animal of any kind or species specified in the order.

(4) No order under sub-section (3) shall be made unless-

(a) it is shown by evidence as to a previous conviction or as to the character of the said personor otherwise as to the treatment of the animal in relation to which he has been convicted that an animal in the custody of the said person is likely to be exposed to cruelty;

(b) it is stated in the complaint upon which the conviction was made that it is the intention of the complaint upon the conviction of the accused to request that an order be made as

aforesaid and

(c) the offence for which the conviction was made was committed in an area in which under the law for the time being in force a license is necessary for the keeping of any such animal as that in respect of which the conviction was made.

(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any person in respect of whom an order is made under sub-section (3) shall have no right to the custody of any animal contrary to the provisions of the order, and if he contravenes the provisions of any order, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to onehundred rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.

(6) Any court which has made an order under sub-section (3) may at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, rescind or modify such order

CHAPTER IV TRANSPORT OF CATTLE

46. Rules 47 to 56 shall apply to the transport by rail of cows, bulls, bullocks, buffaloes, yaks and calves. (hereinafter in these rules referred to as cattle).

47. (a) A valid certificate by a qualified veterinary surgeon to the effect that the cattle are in a fit condition to travel by rail or road and are not suffering from any infectious or contagious or parasitic diseases and that thay have been vaccinated against rinderpest and any other infectious or contagious or parasitic diseases, shall accompany each consignment.

(b) In the absence of such a certificate, the carrier shall refuse to accept the consignment for transport.

(c) The certificate shall be in the form specified in Schedule – E.

48. Veterinary first-aid equipment shall accompany all batches of cattle.

49. (a) Each consignment shall bear a label showing in bold red letters the name, address and telephone number (if any) of the consignor and consignee, the number and types of cattle being transported and quantity of rations and food provided.

(b) The consignee shall be informed about the train or vehicle in which the consignment of cattle is being sent and its arrival time in advance.

(c) The consignment of cattle shall be booked by the next train or vehicle and shall not be detained after the consignment is accepted for booking.

50. The average space provided per cattle in Railway wagon or vehicle shall not be less than two square metres.

51. (a) Suitable rope and platforms

should be used for loading cattle frovehicles.

(b) In case of railway wagon the dropped door of the wagon may be used as a ramp when loading or unloading is done to the platform.

52. Cattle shall be loaded after they are properly fed and given water.

53. Cattle in advanced stage of pregnancy shall not be mixed with young cattle in order to avoid stampede during transportation.

54. (1) Watering arrangements on route shall be made and sufficient quantities of water shall be carried for emergency.

(2) Sufficient feed and fooder with adequate reserve shall be carried to last during the journey.

(3) Adequate ventilation shall be ensured.

55. When cattle is to be transported by rail.

(a) An ordinary goods wagon shall carry not more than ten adult cattle or fifteen calves on broad gauge, not more than six adult cattle or ten calves on metre guage, or not more than four cattle or six calves on narrow gauge.

(b) Every wagon carrying cattle shall have at least one attendant.

(d) Padding material such as straw, shall be placed on the floor to avoid injury if a cattle lies down and this shall not be less than 6 cms thick.

(e) Rations for the journey shall be carried in the middle of the wagon.

(f) To provide adequate ventilation, upper door of one side of the wagon shall be kept open properly fixed and the upper door of the wagon shall have wire gauge closely welded mesharrangements to prevent burning cinders from the engines entering the wagon and leading to fire outbreak.

(g) Cattle wagon should be attached in the middle of the train.

(h) Cooking shall not be allowed in the wagons nor hurricane lamps without chimneys.

(i) Two breast bars shall be provided on each side of the wagon,one at height of 60 to 80 cm& the other at 100to110cm.

(J) Cattle-in-milk shall be milked at least twice a day and the calves shall be given sufficient quantity of milk to drink.

(k) As far as possible, cattle may be moved during the nights only.

(l) During day time, if possible, they should be unloaded, fed , given water and rested and if in milk, milking shall be carried out.

56. When cattle are to be transported by goods vehicle, the following precautions are to be taken namely:

(a) Specially fitted goods vehicles with a special type of tail board and padding around the sides should be used.

(b) Ordinary goods vehicles shall be provided with anti-slipping material, such as coir matting or wooden board on the floor and the superstructure, if low, should be raised.

(c) No goods vehicle shall carry more than six cattle.

(d) Each goods vehicle shall be provided with one attendant.

(e) While transporting, the cattle, the goods, vehicles shall not be loaded with any other merchandise; and

(f) to prevent cattle being frightened or injured, they should preferably, face the engine.

8. SCHEDULE – H (See Rule 47)

Proforma for Certificate of fitness to travel - Cattle

This Certificate should bec ompleted and signed byqualified Veterinary Surgeon

Date and Time of Examination:………………………………….………………

Species of cattle: ………………………………………………….……………

Number of Trucks/Railway Wagons…………………………….………………….........

Number of cattle:………………………………………………………………...

Sex:…………………………. Age:………………………………

Breed and identification marks, if any:………………………..………………...

Transported from……............…To………...............……….Via………......

I hereby certify that I have read rules 46 to 56 in Chapter IV of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978.

1. That, at the request of (consignor)…………………………………I have examined the above mentioned Cattle in the goods vehicle/railway wagons not more than 12 hours before their departure.

2. That each cattle appeared to be in a fit condition to travel by rail/road and is not showing any signs of infectious or contagious or parastic disease and that it has been vaccinated against rinderpest and any other infectious or contagious or parasitic disease(s).

3. That the cattle were adequately fed and watered for the purpose of the journey.

4. That the cattle have been vaccinated.

(a) Type of vaccine/s: (b)Date of vaccination/s:

Signed:……………...................……… Address:………………................……

Date:…………… Qualifications………………….....…

FIRST SCHEDULE

Form for Certificte of fitness for transport of animals

(See rule 4 (3))

This Certificate should be completed and signed

by a qualified Veterinary Doctor

Date and time of examination

Species

Number of Trucks/Railway Wagons

Number of Cattle

Sex Age

Identification

Breed (giving characteristics) - Area where it is found

with status regarding general resistance and heat tolerance

Individual Features of the animal –

Body colour

Height

Body weight (approx)

Animal length

Breadth (measured between pelvic bones)

Colour of the eyes

Shape of the horns

General conditions (like fleshy, bony projections)

Health Status

History of the animal, feed status whether or not sign of anorexia/diarrhea

1. Record Body Temperature

2. Examine eyes for buging or protrusion of eyeball,

blindness, Corneal opacity & specify

3. Condition of skin,(including signs of dehydration, injuries, anorexia (check for presence of warts on the skin)

4. Ears

Examine ears - (check for animal body response to hearing, check for any infection, inflammation or secretion

(a) excess of wax, blood or any fluid)

5. Examine sub maxillary spell for swelling (for any abnormality or pain)

6. Check for status of pregnancy of female animalIf yes - which stage 1st

, 2nd or 3rd stage

7. Examine udder & teats & specify

a. Relative size of quarters

b. Check for signs of swelling / atrophy / fibrous

c. in duration on palpation of individual quarter and specify.

d. Check teat canal for teat tumour or fibrosis of teat canal and specify.

8. a) If female - check

Check for sign of vaginal discharge on examination of the vulva and specify

b) In male - checkTesticles- Size, any sign/abnormalities for monogastric animals

Penis - injury, abrasions or the sheath, discharges to be recorded

9. Sign of abdominal pain (check for gait or posture of the animal, check for signs of abdominal distention, left flank to

be checked for rumen examination (full, empty) tympani/blood

10. Digestive System

Examine mouth and specify

1 Detail out dentition

2 Specify

- evidences of

- tooth damage

- broken or worn incisors

11. Respiratory system

a. Record Respiration rate

b. Auscultation & specify for signs

of dyspnoea, respiratory distress & specify

12. In cows possessing horns check and specify

a. shape of horns

b. number of horn rings

c. any difference in the direction

d. or appearance of two horns

13. Examine ribs for fracture and specify

14. Examine abdominal wall for presence of ventral

or umbrilical hernia and specify.

15. Examine limbs and joints for bony enlargements

or synovial distentions & specify check for signs

of lameness - specify

16. Examine interdigital spaceforanylesions

check and specify

17. Any indications of foot soreness, excessive wear

of soles or laminitis18. Examine circulatory system

1. Specify pulse rate

2. Check for presence of oedema dependent

portion or ascitis and specify

19. Transported from to via

I hereby certify that I have read the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of animals on Foot)

Rules, 2001.

1. That, at the request of (Consignor) , I examined the above mentioned Cattle in the goods vehicle/

railway wagons not more than 12 hours before their departure.

2. That each cattle appeared to be in a fit condition to travel by rail/road and is not showing any

signs of infectious or contagious or parastic disease and that it has been vaccinated against

rinderpest and any other infections or contagious or parasitic disease(s)

3. That the cattle were adequately fed and watered for the purpose of the journey.

4. That the cattle have been vaccinated.

(a) Type of vaccine (b) Date of vaccination :Signed

Address

Date

Qualification

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

(SLAUGHTER HOUSE) RULES, 2001

NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 26th March, 2001

S.O.270(E) - Whereas the draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2000 were published, as required by sub-section (1) of section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960 (59 of 1960), under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment number S.O. 1165 (E) dated the 26th December, 2000 in the Gazette of India,

Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub Section (ii) dated the 27th December, 2000 inviting objections

and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby, before the expiry of the period of sixty days from the date on which copies of the Gazette containing the said notification are made available to the public. And, whereas copies of the said Gazette were made available to the public on the 1st January 2001. And, whereas no objection or suggestion has been received from the public in respect of the said draft rules by the Central Government. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1)

and (2) of section 38 of thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely :

1. Short title and commencement : (1) These rules may be called the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001

(2) They shall come into force on the

date of their publication in the Official Gazette

2. Definitions - In these rules unless the context otherwise requires :-

a) “Act” means the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960);

b) “Slaughter” means the killing or destruction of any animal for the purpose of food and includes

all the processes and operations performed on all such animals in order to prepare it for being

slaughtered.

c) “Slaughter house” means a slaughter house wherein 10 or more than 10 animals are slaughtered

per day and is duly licensed or recognised under a Central, State or Provincial Act or any rules or

regulations made thereunder.

d) “veterinary doctor” means a person registered with the Veterinary Council of India established

under the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (52 of 1984).

3. Animals not to be slaughtered except in recognised or licensed houses - (1) No person shall slaughter any animal within a municipal area except in a slaughter house recognised or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law for the time being in force to do so.

(2) No animal which -(i) is pregnant, or(ii) has an offspring less than three months old, oris under the age of three months or (iv) has not been certified by a veterinary doctor that it is in a fit condition to be slaug htered. shall be slaughtered

(3) The municipal or other local authority specified by the Central Government for this purpose shall,

having regard to the capacity of the slaughter house and the requirement of the local population

of the area in which a slaughter house is situated, determine the maximum number of animals

that may be slaughtered in a day.

4. Reception area or resting grounds - (1) The slaughter house shall have a reception area of adequate

size sufficient for livestock subject to veterinary inspection.

(2) The veterinary doctor shall examine thoroughly not more than 12 animals in an hour and not

more than 96 animals in a day.

(3) The veterinary doctor after examining the animal shall issue a fitness certificate in the form

specified by the Central Government for this purpose.

(4) The reception area of slaughter house shall have proper ramps for direct unloading of animals

from vehicles or railway wagons and the said reception area shall have adequate facility sufficient

for feeding and watering of animals.

(5) Separate isolation pens shall be provided in slaughter house with watering and feeding arrangements

for animals suspected to be suffering from contagious and infectious diseases, and fractious animals,

in order to segregate them from the remaining animals.

(6) Adequate holding area shall be

provided in slaughter house according to the class of animals to

be slaughtered and the said holding area shall have water and feeding facilities.

(7) The resting grounds in slaughter house shall have overhead protective shelters.

(8) Ante-mortem and pen area in slaughter house shall be paved with impervious material such as concrete non-slippery herring-bone type suitable to stand wear and tear by hooves, or brick, andpitched to suitable drainage facilities and the curbs of said impervious material 150 to 300 mmhigh shall be provided around the borders of livestock pen area, except at the entrances and such pen shall preferably be covered.

5. Lairages - (1) Every animal after it has been subjected to veterinary inspection shall be passed on to

a lairage for resting for 24 hours before slaughter.

(2) The lairage of the slaughter house shall be adequate in size sufficient for the number of animals to be laired;

(3) The space provided in the pens of such lairage shall be not less than 2.8 sq.mt. per large animal and 1.6 sq.mt. per small animal

(4) The animals shall be kept in such lairage separately depending upon their type and class and such

lairage shall be so constructed as to protect the animals from heat, cold and rain

(5) The lairage shall have adequate facilities for watering and post-mortem inspection.

6. Slaughter - (1) No animal shall be slaughtered in a slaughter house in sight of other animals

(2) No animal shall be administered any chemical, drug or hormone before slaughter except drug for its treatment for any specific disease or ailment. (3) The slaughter halls in a slaughter house shall provide separate sections of adequate dimensions

sufficient for slaughter of individual animals to ensure that the animal to be slaughtered is not within the sight of other animals.

(4) Every slaughter house as soon as possible shall provide a separate space for stunning of animals prior to slaughter, bleeding and dressing of the carcasses

(5) Knocking section in slaughter house may be so planned as to suit the animal and particularly the

ritual slaughter; if any and such knocking section and dry landing area associated with it shall be so built that escape from this section can be easily carried out by an operator without allowing the animal to pass the escape barrier. (6)A curbed-in bleeding area of adequate size as specified by the Central Government shall be provided in a slaughter house and it shall be so located that the blood could not be splashed on other animals being slaughtered or on the carcass being skinned.

7. Slaughter house building - The different construction of a slaughter house shall be built and maintained by its owner in the manner as specified below, namely :

a) Plant Building - (i) Materials used shall be impervious, easily cleansable, and resistant to wear and corrosion. (ii) Materials such as wood, plaster board, and porous acoustic-type boards, which areabsorbent and difficult to keep clean shall not be used.

b) Floors - The floors shall be non-absorbent and non-slippery with rough finish and shall have suitable gradient for drainage.

c) Coves - Coves with radii sufficient to promote sanitation shall be installed at the juncture of floors and walls in all rooms and which shall not be less than 100 mm.

(d) Interior Walls - (i) Interior walls shall be smooth and flat and constructed of impervious materials such as glazed brick, glazed tile, smooth surface Portland cement plaster, or other non-toxic, nonabsorbent

material applied to a suitable base. (ii) Walls shall be provided with suitable sanitary

type bumpers to prevent damage by hand trucks, carcass shunks, and the like. (iii) The interior walls shall have washable surface up to the height of 2 meters from the floor so that the splashes may be washed and disinfected.

(e) Ceilings - (i) Ceilings shall be of the height of 5 mtrs or more in workrooms and so far as structural conditions permit, ceilings shall be smooth and flat. (ii) Ceilings shall be constructed of Portlandcement plaster, large size cement asbestos boards with joints sealed with a flexible sealing compound, or other acceptable impervious material and finished so as to minimise condensation,mould development, flaking and accumulation of dirt. (iii) The walls above glazed type portionand ceiling shall be painted with water-resistant paint to maintain them clean.

(f) Window Ledges - Window ledges shall be sloped at 45 degrees to promote sanitation and to avoid damage to glass in windows from impact of hand trucks and similar equipment, the windowsills shall be 1200 mm above the floor level with proper ventilation through mechanical venting or through working vents shall be provided in the roof structure.

(g) Doorways and Doors - (i) Doorways through which product is transferred on rails or in hand trucks shall be at least 1500 mm high and shall be atleast 1 500 mm wide. (ii) Doors shall either be of rust-resistant metal construction throughout, or if made with rust-resistant metal having tight softwood, they shall be clad on both sides with soldered or welded seams. (iii) Doorjambs shall be clad with rust-resistant metal securely affixed so as to provide no crevices for dirt or vermin and the juncture at which the door joins the walls shall be effectively sealed with a flexible sealing compound.

(h) Screens and Insect control - All windows, doorways and other openings that may admit flies shall be equipped with effective insect and rodent screens and ‘Fly chaser’ fans and ducts or air curtains shall be provided over doorways in outside wall of food handing areas that are used for dispatch or receiving.

(i) Rodent-Proofing-Except in the case of solid masonry, walls constructed of glazed tile, glazed brick, and the like, expanded metal or wire mesh not exceeding 12.5 mm mesh, shall be embedded in walls and floor at their

junction and such mesh shall extend vertically and horizontally to a sufficient distance to exclude the entrance of rats and other rodents.

(j) Vehicular areas for Trucks - (i) Concrete paved areas, properly drained and extending at least 6 metres from building, loading docks or livestock platforms shall be provided at places where vehicles are loaded or unloaded. (ii) Pressure washing jets and disinfection facilities for trucks carrying animals shall also be provided at such places.

(k) Drainage - (i) All parts of floors where wet operations are conducted shall be well drained and as far as possible, one drainage inlet shall be provided for each 37 metre square of floor space

(ii) A slope of about 20 mm per metre to drainage inlets shall be provided for usual conditions and it shall be ensured that the floor slopes uniformly to drains with no low spots, which collect liquid. (iii) Floor drains shall not be provided in freezer rooms or dry storage areas and when floor drains are installed in rooms where the water seal in traps is likely to evaporate without replenishment, they shall be provided with suitable removable metal screw plugs.

(l) Traps and vents on drainage lines - (i) Each floor drain, including blood drains, shall be equipped with a deep seal trap (P-, U-, or S-shape) (ii) Drainage lines shall be properly vented to the outside air and be equipped with effective rodent screens.

(m)Sanitary drainage lines - Drainage line from toilet pans and urinals shall not be connected with other drainage lines within the plant and shall not discharge into a grease catch basin and such lines shall be installed so that if leakage develops, it shall not affect the product or the equipment.

(n) Lighting and ventilation - (i) Unrefrigerated work rooms shall be provided with adequate direct natural light and ventilation or ample artificial light and ventilation by mechanical means. (ii)

Uncoloured glass having a high transmissibility of light shall be used in skylights and windows (iii)

The glass area shall be approximately one-fourth of the floor area of a workroom and such ratio

shall be increased where there are obstructions, such as adjacent buildings, overhead catwalks,

and hoists, which interfere with the admittance of direct natural light. (iv) Distributed artificial lighting of much quality and at such distances as may be specified by the Central Government shall be provided at all places where adequate natural light is not available or is insufficient.

(o) Every abattoir shall be provided with distributed artificial light of an overall intensity of not less than 200 lux at the distances as may be specified by the Central Government throughout the slaughter hall and workrooms and at places where meat inspection is carried out, the overall intensity of artificial light shall be not less than 500 lux. (p) every abattoir shall be provided with suitable and sufficient means of ventilation to the outside air and the construction of the slaughter hall shall be so arranged that the dressed carcasses are not exposed to direct sunlight;

(q) a sufficient, safe, potable and constant supply of fresh water shall be available at adequate pressure through the premises.

(r) the pressure for the general purpose of floor washing may preferably be 200 to 330 kPa for through floor cleaning

(s) for thorough and efficient washing of carcasses, a higher pressure between 1000 kPa to 1700 kPa shall be maintained.

(t) floor washing point shall be provided preferably for minimum 37 meter square on slaughter floor and working departments.

(u) a constant supply of clean hot water shall be available in the slaughter hall and workrooms during working hours and the hotwater required for frequent sterilising of equipment shall not be less than 82 degree celsius.

(v) where necessary for sanitary maintenance, equipment shall be constructed and installed so as to be completely self-draining.

(w) the following materials shall not be used in an abattoir, namely-

(i) copper and its alloys in equipment used for edible products.

(ii) cadmium in any form in equipment handling edible products

(iii)equipment with painted surface in product zone

(iv)enamel containers or equipment is not desirable and

(v) lead.

(x) all permanently mounted equipment shall either be installed sufficiently away from walls (minimum 300 mm) to provide access for cleaning and inspection.

(y) all permanently mounted equipment shall either be installed sufficiently above the floor (minimum 300 mm) to provide access for cleaning and inspection or be completely sealed (watertight) to the floor area.

8. Engagement in slaughter house - (1) No owner or occupier of a slaughter house shall engage a person for slaughtering animals unless he possesses a valid license or authorisation issued by the municipal or other local authority.

(2) No person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be employed in any manner in a slaughter house.

(3) No person who is suffering from any

communicable or infectious disease shall be permitted to slaughter an animal.

9. Inspection of slaughter house - (1) The Animal Welfare Board of India or any person or Animal Welfare Organisation authorised by it may inspect any slaughter house without notice to its owner or the person incharge of it at any time during the working hours to ensure that the provisions of these rules are being complied with.

(2) The person or the Animal Welfare Organisation authorised under sub rule (1) shall after inspection send its report to Animal Welfare Board of India as well as to the municipal or local authority for appropriate action including initiation of legal proceedings if any, in the event of violation of any provisions of these rules.

(F.No.19/1/2000-

DHARMENDRADEO,Jt. Secy.

PCA (ESTABLISHMENT AND REGULATION OF SOCIETIES FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS) RULES, 2001

1. Short title and commencement - (1) These rules may be called the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Establishment & Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Definitions - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires.

(a) “Act” means the Prevention of CrueltytoAnimalsAct,1960 (59 of 1960)

(b) “Animal Welfare Organisation” means a Welfare Organisation for animals which is registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 (21 of 1860) or any other corresponding law for the time being in force and recognised by the Board or the Central Govt.

(d) “local authority” means a municipal board of municipal committee, a State Animal Welfare Board, district board or any local animal welfare organisation authorised by any law for the control andadministration of any matter relating to animals within a specified local areas.

(e) “Society” means Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (hereinafter referred to as SPCA) established in any district under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or any other corresponding law applicable in a state & shall include the existing SPCA functioning in any dist.

(f) “veterinary doctor” means a person registered with the Veterinary Council of India established under the Indian VeterinaryCouncilAct,1984(52 of1984).

3. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to animals in a district -

(1) Every State Government shall by notification in the Official Gazette, establish, as soon as may be and in any event within six months from the date of commencement of these rules, a society for every district in the State to be the SPCA in that district. Provided that any society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals functioning in any district on the date of commencement of these rules shall continue to discharge its functions till establishment of the SPCA in that district under these rules.

(2) The Managing Committee of the Society shall be appointed by the State Government or the local authority of the district consisting of a Chairperson to be appointed by the State Government or the local authority of the district, as the case may be with the concurrence of the Board and shallconsist of such number of other members as may be considered necessary by the State Government or the local authority of the district subject to the condition that-

(i) at least two members shall be representatives of the Animal Welfare Organisations which are actively involved in the work of prevention of cruelty to animals and welfare of animals preferably from within the district; and

(ii) at least two members shall be the persons elected by the general body of members of theSociety.

(3) The duties and powers of the Society shall be to aid the Government, the Board and local authorityin enforcing the provisions of the Act and to make such bye-laws and guidelines as it may deem necessary for the efficient discharge of its duties.

(4) The Society, or any person authorized by it in this behalf, if it or he has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence under the Act, it or such authorized person may require such person to produce forthwith any animal in his possession, control, custody orownership, or any license, permit or any other document granted to such person or required to be kept by him under the provisions of the Act and may stop any vehicle or enter into any premises in order to conduct a search or inquiry and may seize an animal in respect of which it or such authorized person has reason to believe that an offence under the Act is being committed, and deal with it in accordance with law.

(5) In addition to the powers conferred by these rules, the State Government may, in consultation with the Board, confer such other powers upon any Society for exercising the powers and discharging the functions assigned to it under these rules.

4. Setting up of infirmaries and animal shelters - (1) Every State Government shall provide adequate land and other facilities to the Society for the purpose of constructing infirmaries and animal shelters.

(2) Every infirmary and animal shelter shall have -

(i) a full time veterinary doctor and other staff for the effective running and maintenance of such infirmary or animal shelter; and

(ii) an administrator who shall be appointed by the Society.

(3) Every Society shall, through its administrator or otherwise, supervise the overall functioning ofthe infirmaries and animal shelters under its control and jurisdiction.

(4) All cattle pounds and pinjrapoles owned and run by a local authority shall be managed by such authority jointly with the Society or Animal Welfare Organisations.

5. Regulation of SPCAs

(1) Every Society shall submit its annual report to the Board incorporating therein the activities undertaken by it for the welfare of animals and the steps or measures taken by it to implement various provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder along with annual accounts dulyaudited by a chartered accountant or any other body authorised by law within a period of onemonth from the date of its accounts having been finalised by its managing committee.

(2) The Board shall examine such annual report and the annual accounts submitted by the Society and may give any directions to it for improvement of its functioning including the supercession of the managing committee of the Society with a view to give effect to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.

Provided that the Board shall give opportunity of personal hearing to the office bearers of the Society or any representative authorised by it before giving direction of its supercession and holding of fresh elections for electing a new managing committee as per bye-laws of the society.

(3) The Board shall give any direction to any Society in the interest of smooth & efficient functioning of the Society including the procedure for holding the election of the managing committee ofthe Society, utilisation of financial resources & management of assets of the Society with a view to give effect tothe provisions of theAct and the rules made thereunder.

Karnataka Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959

(Received the assent of the President on the 27th January, 1960.)

(As Amended by Karnataka Act 21 of 1975.)

An Act to prevent animal sacrifices in or within the precincts of 2[any place of public religious worship or adoration and in any congregation or procession connected with religious worship]2 in the 1[State of Karnataka]1.

WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the prevention of anim al sacrifices taking place in or within the precincts of 2[any place of public religious worship or adoration and in any congregation or procession connected with religious worship]2 in the 1[State of Karnataka]1;

BE it enacted by the 1 [Karnataka]1 State Legislature in the Tenth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

1. Short title, extent and commencement.- (1) This Act may be called the 1[Karnataka]Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959.

(2) It extends to the whole of the 1 [State of Karnataka]1.

(3) It shall come into force at once.

2. Definitions.- In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “animal” includes birds;

1[(b) “precincts” in relation to a place of public religious worship or adoration includes all lands and buildings near such place which are ordinarily used for purposes connected with religious worship or adoration;]1

(c)“sacrifice” means thekilling or maiming of any animal for the purpose 2[of any religious worship or adoration]3 ; 1[(d) “place of public religious worship or adoration” means any place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public or a section thereof for the purposes of religious worship or adoration.]1

1. Substituted by Act 21 of 1975 w.e.f. 15.5.1975 1

[3. Sacrifice in or in precincts of any place of public religious worship or adoration or in a congregation or procession connected with religious worship, prohibited.- No person shall sacrifice any animal in any place of public religious worship or adoration or its precincts or in any congregation or procession conneany religious worship in a public street.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section and section 4 “public street” means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public are granted access or over which they have a right to pass.]1

1. Sustituted by Act 21 of 1975 w.e.f. 15.5.1975

4. Officiating at sacrifices prohibited.- No person shall,- 3

(a) officiate or offer to officiate at, or

(b) perform or offer to perform, or

(c) serve, assist or participate, or offer to serve, assist or participate in, - any sacrifice in any 1 [place of public religious worship or adoration or its precincts or in any congregation or procession connected with any religious worship in a public street]1.

1. Sustituted by Act 21 of 1975 w.e.f. 15.5.1975 5. 1

[Place of public religious worship or adoration]1 or its precincts not to be

allowed to be used for sacrifice.- No person shall knowingly allow aany sacrifice to be performed at any place, which,-

(a) is situated within any 1

[place of public religious worship or adoration]1 or its precincts, and

(b) is in his possession or under his control.

1. Sustituted by Act 21 of 1975 w.e.f. 15.5.1975

6. Penalties.- (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 3 shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.

(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 4 shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees:

Provided that if the offender is an officer, servant, authority, trustee or priest of the 1 [institution related to the place of public religious worship or adoration]1 , or the holder of an office and in receipt of emoluments or perquisites for the performance of any service in the 1 [institution related to the place of public religious worship or adoration]1, he shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

(3) Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 5 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, which may extend to three hundred rupees, or with both.

Explanation.—Any person who attempts to contravene or abets or attempts to abet a contravention of section 3, section 4 or section 5, shall be deemed t have contravened the said section.

7. General power to arrest without warrant.- Any Police Officer, not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector, may arrest without warrant any person who contravenes the provisions of this Act.

8. Power to make Rules.- (1) The State Government may, subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules by notification in the Official Gazette, generally for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.

(2) The rules made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after they are made, before each House of the State Legislature, while it is in session for a total period of thirty days, which may be comprised in one session, or in two or more sessions, and if before the expiry of the said period, either House of the State Legislature makes any modifications in the rules or directs that the rules shall not have effect and themodifications or directions are agreed to by the other House, the rules shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be.

9. Repeal.- The Mysore Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act 1948 (Mysore Act LI of 1948), as in force in the Mysore Area and the Madras Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1950 (Madras Act No. XXXII of 1950) as in force in the 1[Mangalore and Kollegal Area]1, are hereby repealed:

……………………………………….

Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules

RULE 74 of Karnataka Motor Rules, 1989

Sec: 74. Carriage of animals in goods vehicle.-

(1) No cattle shall be carried in a goods vehicle in a public place unless:-

(A) in the case of goat, sheep, deer or pig,-

(i) a minimum floor space of 0.2 square meter per head of such cattle is provided in the vehicles;

(ii) proper arrangements for ventilation are made; and

(iii)it carried in a double decked goods vehicle.-

(a) The upper deck flooring is covered with metal sheets with a minimum height of 7.62 cms. Raised on all four sides so as to prevent the animal waste matter such as urine, litter, etc., falling on the animals on the lower deck;

(b) Proper arrangements for drainage are made on each floor;

(B) in the case of any other cattle,-

(i) a minimum floor space of 2m x 1m per head of cattle and half of such floor space for a young one of cattle which is weaned is provided in the vehicle;

(ii) The lead body of the vehicle in constructed of strong wooden planks or of iron sheets with a minimum height of 1.5 meters measured from the floor of the vehicle on all sides and the back;

(iii) floor battans are provided to prevent slipping of hoofs; (iv) Every projection likely to cause suffering to an animal is removal; &

(v) The cattle are properly secured by ropes tied to the sides of the vehicle.

Explanation.-“Cattle” for the purpose of this sub-rule includes goat, sheep, buffalo, bull, ox, cow, deer, pony, mule, ass, pig or the young ones thereof.(2) No animal belonging to or intended for a circus, menagerie or zoo shall be carried in a goods vehicle in a public place unless,-

(i) in the case of wild or ferocious animal, a suitable cage, either separate from or integral with the lead body of the vehicle used of sufficient strength to contain the animal securely at all times is provided; and

(ii) reasonable floor space for each animal is provided in the vehicle.

(3) No goods vehicle when carrying any cattle or any animal shall be driver at a speed in excess of 24 kms. Per hour.

202. A. Power to detain vehicles._ Any Officer of othe Transport Department not below the rank of Motor vehicles inspector or an Police Officer not below the rank of circle Inspector of Police are authorized to exercise powers under Section 207.

202- B. Procedure of detaining a motor vehicle._ When a motor vehicle is detained by any officer referred to Rule 202-A, he shall take the following steps, namely.-

(i) arrangement shall be made for temporary safe custody of the motor vehicle in the nearest Police station or at any appropriate place;

(ii) the fact of seizure and detention shall be informed without delay to the secretary, RTO Authority of the region and the secretary, Regional Transport Authority of the region to which the motor vehicles belongs;

(iii) where prosecution of othe driver or owner or both is necessary, charge sheets against themshall be filed before the concerned Maistrate within three days

(computation of three days shall be in accordance with section 10 of General Clauses act, 1897) from the date of seizure and the motor vehicle shall be released by the Officer who detained if after the prosecution is completed under intimation to both the secretaries of Regional Transport Authorities mentioned in clause (ii);

(iv) mahazor of the vehicles is to be carried out in writing of its condition, and parts which are easily removable, replaceable and temperable (viz., Television, DVD/VCD/MP-3 Play Raido, public address system and any other such equipments) and a copy of its is to be delivered to othe person from whom it is seized, duly signed.

202- C. Release of seized and detained vehicles._ (1) An application for release of a vehicle seized and detained under sub-section (1) of section 207 shall be in the form of a memorandum in duplicate with relevant documents duly enclosing a fee of rupees fifty. The Secretaries of the Regional Trasnport Authority, of the Region shall entertain an application for

release of vehicles seized and detained by his subordinate Officers

192-A. Using vehicles without permit. – (1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allow a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of theprovisions of sub-section (1) of section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both : Provided that the Court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.

(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehiclein an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injury or for the transport of materials for repair or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose : Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the RTO Authority within 7 days from the date of such use.

(3) The Court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1), may set aside or vary any order, made by the Court below, not with standing that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made].Corresponding Law. – Section 192-A corresponds to section 123 of theMotor Vehicles Act,

Municipal Administration Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964

87. Obligatory functions of municipal councils.—

91. Discretionary functions of municipal councils.—

226. Non-removal of filth, etc. 228. Filthy buildings, etc.—

232. Power to enter and inspect, etc., buildings.—

242. Prohibition of nuisance.—

243. Licensing markets, slaughter houses and certain businesses.—

244. Opening, closing and letting of markets and slaughter houses.

246. Slaughter houses, etc., beyond municipal limits.—

247. Unwholesome articles of food and drink 1. Substituted by Act 36 of 1994 w.e.f. 1-6.1994.

251. Duties of municipal council in respect of disease among horses, dogs, cattle, sheep or goats. 256. Premises not to be used for certain purposes without licence.— urpose referred to in cause (a) or (b) of sub-section (1).

257. Power of Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer to prevent use of premises in particular areas for purposes referred to in section 256,

262. Service of notices, etc.—

262A. Prohibition of unauthorised occupation of land.—

276. Municipal Council may prosecute.

323. Government to make rules. 324. Power to make bye-laws

THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER AND CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 1964.

(Received the assent of the President on the Fourteenth day of August, 1964.)

(As amended by Karnataka Acts 24 of 1966 , 26 of 1975)

An Act to provide for the prevention of slaughter of cows, calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes and for the preservation of other cattle in the State. WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the prevention of slaughter of cows, calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes and for the preservation of other cattle in the State; BE it enacted by the 1[Karnataka State]1 Legislature in the Fifteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows:— 1. Adapted by the Karnataka Adaptations of Laws Order 1973 w.e.f. 1.11.1973

Sections

1. Short title, extent and commencement.—(1) This Act may be called the 1[Karnataka]1 Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964.

(2) It shall extend to the whole of the 1[State of Karnataka]1.

(3) It shall come into force at once. 1. Adapted by the Karnataka Adaptations of LawsOrder1973 w.e.f. 1.11.1973

2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(i) “animal” means bull, bullock, buffalo-male or female, or calf of she-buffalo whether male or female;

(ii) “competent authority” means a person or a body of persons appointed to perform the functions of a competent authority under this Act;

(iii) “cow” includes calf of a cow, whether male or female;

(iv) “notification” means a notification published in the official Gazette; and

(v) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act.

3. Appointment of competent authority.—The State Government may, by notification, appoint a person or a body of persons to perform the functions of a competent authority under this Act for such local area as may be specified in such notification4. Prohibition of slaughter of cow or calf of she-buffalo.—Notwithstanding any law, custom, or usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter or otherwise intentionally kill or offer or cause to be offered for killing any cow or calf of she-buffalo.

5. Prohibition against slaughter of animals without certificate from competent authority.—(1) Notwithstanding any law, custom, or usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter any animal, other than a calf of she-buffalo, unless he has obtained in respect of such animal a certificate in writing from the competent authority appointed for the area that the animal is fit for slaughter.

(2) A certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted by the competent authority, after it has, for reasons to be recorded in writing, certified that,—

(a) the animal is over the age of twelve years; or

(b) the animal has become permanently incapacitated for breeding, draught or giving milk due to injury, deformity or any other cause.

(3) No certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted if the animal is suffering from any disease which makes its meat unwholesome for human consumption.

(4) A certificate under this section shall be granted in such form and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.

6. Power of revision.—(1) The State Government may, at any time, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by a competent authority, granting or refusing to grant any certificate under section 5, call for and examine the records of the case and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) any order passed by the competent authority granting or refusing to grant a certificate, and any order passed by the State Government under sub-section (1), shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.

7. Slaughter to be in places specified.—No animal in respect of which a certificate has been granted under section 5, shall be slaughtered in any place other than a place specified by such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.

8. Restriction on transport of animal or cow for slaughter.—No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any animal or cow from any place within the State to any place outside the State, for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so slaughtered.

9. Prohibition of sale, purchase or disposal of cow or calf of she-buffalo for slaughter.—No person shall purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or offer to purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or cause to be purchased, sold or otherwise disposed of, cows or calves of she-buffaloes for slaughter or knowing or having reason to believe that such cattle shall be slaughtered

10. Power to enter and inspect.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, the competent authority or any person authorised in this behalf by the competent authority (hereinafter referred to as the “authorised person”) shall have power to enter and inspect any premises where the competent authority or the authorised person has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is likely to be committed.

(2) Every person in occupation of any such premises shall allow the competent authority or the authorised person such access to the premises as may be necessary for the aforesaid purpose and shall answer to the best of his knowledge and belief any questions put to him by the competent authority or by the authorised person.

11. Penalties.—Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

12. Offences under the Act to be cognizable.—All offences under this Act, shall be cognizable

13. Abetment.—Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act or attempts to commit any such offence, shall be punished with the punishment provided in this Act for such offence

14. Persons exercising powers under the Act deemed to be public servants.—All persons exercising powers under this Act shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

15. Protection of persons acting in good faith.—No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the competent authority or any person exercising powers under this Act for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the rule made there under

16. Exemptions.—Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, this Act shall not apply to,—

(a) any cow or animal operated upon for vaccine lymph, serum or for any experimental or research purpose at an institution established, conducted or recognized by the State Government; or

(b) any cow or animal,— (i) slaughter of which is certified by a Veterinary Officer authorized by the State Government, to be necessary in the interest of the public health; (ii) which is suffering from any disease which is certified by a Veterinary Officer authorized by the State Government as being contagious and dangerous

To other animals. 1[(c) any cow or animal, slaughter of which is certified to be necessary on the ground that it is suffering from an incurable disease or injury,— (i) in the case of a cow or animal belonging to the Central Government in the Ministry of Defence, by a Veterinary Officer of the Indian Army; (ii) in the case of any other cow or animal, by a Veterinary Officer authorized by the State Government.]1 1. Substituted by Act 26 of 1975 w.e.f. 5.6.1975

17. Delegation of powers.—The State Government may, by notification, delegate,—

(i)to any local authority, its powers and functions under section 3, within the local area subject to the jurisdiction of such local authority; (ii)to any officer of the State Government its powers and functions under sub-section (1) of section 6.

18. Establishment of institutions for taking care of cows or other animals.—

(1) The State Government may establish, or direct any local authority or society registered under the 1 [Karnataka]1 Societies Registration Act, 1960, or any association or body of persons to establish institutions at such places as may be deemed necessary for taking care of cows or other animals sent thereto.

1. Adapted by the Karnataka Adaptations of Laws Order 1973 w.e.f. 1.11.1973

(2) The State Government may provide by rules for the proper management of such institutions for the care of cows or other animals therein and also for the class or variety of cows or other animals that may be admitted herein.

(3) The State Government or subject to the previous sanction of the State Government, the local authority, society or body of persons or association establishing an institution under sub-section (1), may levy such fees as may be prescribed for the maintenance of such institutions.

19. Power to make rules.—(1) The State Government may by notification, after previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

(2) In particular & without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for,—

(a) the powers and duties of competent authority, in addition to those provided in this Act;

(b) the form of the certificate under section 5;

(d) the conditions subject to which this Act shall not apply to any animal under section 16;

(e) the management of Institutions established under section 18 and the fee to be levied for their maintenance; and

(f) any other matter which is to be or

may be, prescribed.

(3) Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may

be after it is made before each House of the State Legislature

while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, both Houses agree in making anymodification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done u nder that rules

A.P.M.C. ACT & RULES CIR. Sl. No. KM33:RULE:99 DT.16.4.1999

Yards in the State are hereby instructed the following Directions;

1. All APMC shall register Cattle like Ox, Cow, Calves, Buffalo etc seperately at Entry point

2. As per Act present market Fee is RS.5/-. per head of Cattle IN ADDITION 0.50 P. Per head of Cattle shall be charged at ENTRY REGISTER LEVEL.

3. Cattle purchaser shalll pay license fee and obtain License under Rule 72 & 76. Those who have a.regular transection, they shall obtain under Rule 76 and other shall obtain temporary License under Rule 72(3) of A.P.M.C. and pay license fee of RS.50/-

4. The APMC YARD shall record cattle purchaser’s permanent address and purpose for which Cattle is purchased in Register in A.P.M.C.

5. As per Provisions of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter & Preservation of Cattle Act, 1964 slaughter of milking animal i.e. Cow, Calves & She Buffalo is banned. In case A.P.M.C officials suspect that Cattle transected are for Slaughter. They shall intimate the matter to nearest Police Station immediately.

6. Purchaser shall show purchase receipt for Market Fee, Registration Fee & License to officials during transportation from APMC YARDS

7. The Fruit and Vegitable waste generated in APMC YARDS may be lifted for the use of Cattle feeding and same shall be deleivered free of Cost to Pinjrapole / Gau Raksha Sangh

8. As Sale, Purchase & Transportation of Cow & Cattle for slaughter are illegal as per ACT of 1964. Such instances be checked and be reported to nearest Police Station for further action.

9. Copy of Memo is endorsed to Editor KRUSHIPET, Vidya Nagar, Hubli for publication in KRUSHIPET Monthly for awareness and information to RYATS and General Public.

Cow is not permitted to slaughter even on Bakar Idd Day –

A landmark judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6790 of 1983

CITATION: 1995AIR 4641995 SCC (1) 189 JT 1994 (7)6971994SCALE(4)979

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1994

PETITIONER: STATE OF W.B. Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASHUTOSH LAHIRI

BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) HANSARIA B.L.(J)

JUDGMENT:

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAJMUDAR, J.- All these appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. 709 (W) of 1971 decided on 20-8-1982.The appellants in these appeals are the State of West Bengal and the other contesting respondents who were before the High Court.

27 respondents herein had filed the writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the validity of exemption of slaughter of scheduled animal, namely, cows, from the operation of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on BakrI'd day. The writ petitioners had obtained leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and joined Respondents 7 to21representing the Muslim community.

The writ petitioner contended before the High Court tha the State of West Bengal Respondent 1 before the High Court had wrongly invoked Section 12 of the Act when it exempted from the operation of the Act, the slaughter of healthy cows on the occasion of BakrI'd on the ground that such exemption was required to be given for the religious purpose of Muslim community. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court after hearing the contesting parties took the view that such slaughter of cows by members of Muslim community on BakrI'd day was not a requirement of Muslim religion and, therefore, such exemption was outside the scope of Section 12 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was dehors the statute. In that view the Division Bench allowed the petition and issued a mandamus to the appellants, State of West Bengal Respondent 1 and its delegate officers Respondents 2 to 16 in the writ petitioncalling upon them to forbear from giving any exemption under Section 12 of the Act in respect of slaughter of cows on the occasion of BakrI'd day thereinafter. The writ petitioner's oral application for leave under Article 133 of the Constitution was refused as according to the Division Bench it had followed the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar1, in coming to the said conclusion.

2.As noted earlier the State of West Bengal as well as other contesting respondents of Muslim community have preferred these appealsby way of special leave to appeal fromthe aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of theCalcutta High Court.

3.As all these appeals involve common questions of facts and law, learned counsel for contesting parties addressed common arguments in all these appeals.Consequently,we are disposing of these appeals by this common judgment.

4.Learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals vehemently contended that the view of the High Court is erroneous and does not correctly interpret Section 12 of the Act. It must be held that such exemption can be granted for fulfilling any religious purpose and such purpose may not be an obligatory purpose. That even if it is open to a Muslim to offer sacrifice of a goat or a camel or a cow and when such a sacrifice should be of a healthy animal then it was perfectly open to the State to grant exemption from the operation of the Act so far as slaughtering of a healthy cow on BakrI'd day was concerned. It was also contended that the High Court had misread the judgment in Quareshi case1 as this case had interpreted Article 25 of the Constitution of India and in that light it was held that slaughter of cows could not be considered to be a part of essential religious requirement. So far as Section 12 of the Act is concerned it does not talk of an essential religious purpose but talks of any religious purpose which may include even an

optional purpose. Mr Tarkunde, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for one of the appellants vehemently contended that for operation of Section 12 it is not necessary that the religious purpose must be a mandatory purpose but would cover even an optional purpose as contemplated by the Muslim religion, like slaughter of healthy cow on BakrI'd. Hence such a purpose would be covered by the sweep of Section 12 of the Act.

5.On the other hand learned counsel for the originalwrit petitioners, respondents in these appeals, contended that the Act is meant for controlling the slaughter of animals including the cows and buffaloes and this is with the object of increasing the supply of milk and avoiding the wastage of animal power necessary for improvement of agriculture. Under Section 4 of the Act only animals fit for slaughtering can be slaughtered. For that a certificate is

required to be issued by the authorities concerned. But so far as healthy animals like cows are concerned there is a complete ban on slaughtering them. Section 12 seeks to lift the ban in connection with such animals only on the fulfilment of the condition precedent, namely, such lifting of the ban being necessary for any religious, medicinal or research purpose. As this is an exception to the general protection against slaughtering of health animal as envisaged by the Act, such exemption or exception should be strictly construed and cannot be lightly granted or lightly resorted to for any optional religious purpose which may not be absolutely necessary. In this connection it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that as per the appellants, in order to earn religious merit a Muslim can offer sacrifice of a goat or alternatively of a healthy cow if 7 Muslims together decided to do so and spend for it or even a camel can be sacrificed by them on BakrI'd.

Therefore, it is not essential for Muslims to earn religious merit by insisting on sacrificing only healthy cows on BakrI'd. Consequently, the State will not have any Jurisdiction or power to invoke Section 12 for fulfilling such optional religious practice of Muslim community. It was further contended that the Constitution Bench judgment in Quareshi case1 has clearly ruled that slaughter of cow on BakrI'd day cannot be considered to be a part of essential

religious practice and that is the reason why protection of Article 25 is not available for enabling slaughtering of cows on BakrI'd day. If that is so, on that very basis the State's action under Section 12 of the Act has to be judged otherwise what is held to be non-essential religious requirement by the Constitution Bench of this Court, would be treated as essential religious requirement for the purpose of Section 12 of the Act. That would run counter to the very ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioners, the Division Bench ofthe High Court was perfectly justified in following the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Quareshi case1.

6.We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In our view the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court under appeal is unexceptionable and calls for no interference.We must keep in view the scheme of the Act for deciding the question in controversy.

7.As the preamble of the Act shows it was enacted to control the slaughter of certain animals as it was expedient to doso with a view to increase the supply of milk and to avoid the wastage of animal power necessary for improvement of agriculture. Section 2 lays down that the Act applies to animals specified in the schedule. The schedule to the Act covers bullsbullocks ,cows, calves, male and female buffaloes, buffalo calves and castrated buffaloes. Section

4 of the Act deals with prohibition of slaughtering of animals without certificate from authorities concerned. Section 4(1) provides that notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force or in any usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter any animal unless he has obtained in respect thereof a certificate under subsection (2) or sub-section (3) that the animal is fit for slaughter.

As per sub- section (2) a certificate is required to be issued by the authorities concerned that the animal is over 14 years of age and is unfit for work or breeding or that the animal has become permanently incapacitated from work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity or any incurable disease. Sub- section (3) deals with a case where there is a difference of opinion between the authorities concerned from which initially a certificate is to be obtained. As per Section 5 even if there is a certificate enabling a person to get the animal concerned slaughtered he cannot slaughter it in any place other than the place prescribed in that behalf. As per Section 7 whoever contravenes the provision of the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extendto one thousand rupees or with both. Section 8 makes the offences cognizable under the Act. Section 9 prescribes punishment for abetment of offences or even attempts to commit any such offence under the Act.

8.The aforesaid relevant provisions clearly indicate the legislative intention that healthy cows which are not fit to be slaughtered cannot be slaughtered at all. That is the thrust of Section 4 of the Act. In other words there is total ban against slaughtering of healthy cows and other Animals mentioned in the schedule under Section 2 of the Act. This is the very essence of the Actand it is necessary to subserve the purpose of the Act i.e. to increase the supply of milk and avoid the wastage of animal power necessary for improvement of agriculture. Keeping in view these essential features of the Act, we have to construe Section 12 which deals with power to grant exemption from the Act. As we have noted earlier the said section enables the State Government by general or special order and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, to exempt from the operation of this Act slaughter of any animal for any religious, medicinal or research purpose. Now it becomes clear that when there is a total ban under the Act so far as slaughtering of healthy cows which are not fit to be slaughtered as per Section 4(1) is concerned, if that ban is to be lifted even for a day, it has to be shown that such lifting of ban is necessary for subserving any religious, medicinal or research purpose.

The Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi case1 at (SCR) page 650 of the report speaking through Das, C.J. referred to the observations in Hamilton's translation of Hedaya, Book XLIII at page 592 that it is the duty of every free Mussalman arrived at the age of maturity, to offer a sacrifice on the I'd Kurban, or festival of the sacrifice, provided he be then possessed of Nisab and be not a traveller. The sacrifice established for one person is a goat and that for seven a cow or a camel.

It is, therefore, optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goatfor one person or a cow or a camel for seven persons.It does not appear to be obligatory that a personmustsacrifice a cow. Once the religious purpose of Muslims consists of making sacrifice of any animal which should be a healthy animal, on BakrI'd, then slaughtering of cow is not the only way of carrying out that sacrifice. It is,therefore, obviously not an essential religious purpose but an optional one. In this connection Mr Tarkunde for the appellants submitted that even optional purpose would be covered by the term "any religious purpose" as employed by Section 12 and should not be an essential religious purpose. We cannot accept this view for the simple reason that Section 12 seeks to lift the ban in connection with slaughter of such animals on certain conditions. For lifting the ban it should be shown that it is essential or necessary for a Muslim to sacrifice a healthy cow on BakrI'd day and if such is the requirement of religious purpose then it may enable the State in its wisdom to lift the ban at least on BakrI'd day. But that is not the position. It is well settled that an exceptional provision which seeks to avoid the operation of main thrust of the Act has to be strictly construed. In this connection it is profitable to refer to the decisions of this Court in the cases Union of India v. Wood Paper Ltd.2 and Novopan India Ltd. v. C.C.E. & Customs3. If any optional religious purpose enabling the Muslim to sacrifice a healthy cow on BakrI'd is made the subject-matter of an exemption under Section 12 of the Act then such exemption would get granted for a purpose which is not an essential one and to that extent the exemption would be treated to have been lightly or cursorily granted. Such is not the scope and ambit of Section 12. We must, therefore, hold that before the State can exercise the exemption power under Section 12 in connection with slaughter of any healthy animal covered by the Act, it must be shown that such exemption is necessary to be granted for subserving an essential religious, medicinal or research purpose. If granting of such exemption is not essential or necessary for effectuating such a purpose no such exemption can be granted so as to bypass the thrust of the main provisions of the Act. We, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that even for an optional religious purpose exemption can be validly granted under Section 12. In this connection it is also necessary to consider Quareshi case1 which was heavily relied upon by the High Court. The total ban on slaughter of cows even on BakrI'd day as imposed by Bihar Legislature under Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1955 was attacked as violative of the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 25 of the Constitution. Repelling this contention the Constitution Bench held that even though Article 25(1) granted to all persons the freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion, as slaughter of cows on BakrI'd was not an essential religious practice for Muslims,total ban on cow's slaughter on all days including BakrI'dday would not be violative of Article 25(1). As we havenoted earlier the Constitution Bench speaking through DasC.J., held that it was optional for the Muslims to sacrifice a cow on behalf of seven persons on BakrI'd but it does notappear to be obligatory that a person must sacrifice a cow. It was further observed by the Constitution Bench that the very fact of an option seemed to run counter to the notion of an obligatory duty. One submission was also noted that a person with six other members of his family may afford to sacrifice a cow but may not be able to afford to sacrifice seven goats, and it was observed that in such a case there may be an economic compulsion although there was noreligious compulsion. In this connection, Das C.J. referred to the historical background regarding cow slaughtering from the times of Mughal emperors. Mughal Emperor Babur saw the wisdom ofprohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious sacrifice and directed his son Humayun to follow this. Similarly, Emperors Akbar, Jehangir and Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter. In the light of this historical background it was held tha total ban on cow slaughter did not offend Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

9.In view of this settled legal position it becomes obvious that if there is no fundamental right of a Muslim to insist on slaughter of healthy cow on BakrI'd day, it cannot be a valid ground for exemption by the State underSection 12 which would in turn enable slaughtering of such cows on BakrI'd. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that Article 25(1) of the Constitution deals with essential religious practices while Section 12 of the Act may cover even optional religious practices is not acceptable. No such meaning can be assignedto such an exemption clause which seeks to whittle down and dilute the main provision of the Act, namely, Section 4 which is the very heart of the Act. If the appellants' contention is accepted then the State can exempt from the operation of the Act, the slaughter of healthy cows even for non-essential religious, medicinal or research purpose, as we have to give the same meaning to the three purposes, namely, religious, medicinal or research purpose, as envisaged by Section 12. It becomes obvious that if for fructifying any medicinal or research purpose it is not necessary or essential to permit slaughter of healthy cow, then there would be no occasion for the State to invoke exemption power under Section 12 of the Act for such a purpose. Similarly it has to be held hat if it is not necessary or essential to permit slaughter of a healthy cow for any religious purpose it would be equally not open to the State to invoke its exemption power under Section12 for such a religious purpose. We, therefore, entirely concur with the view of the High Court that slaughtering of healthy cows on BakrI'd is not essential or required for religious purpose of Muslims or in other words it is not a part of religious requirement for a Muslim that a cow must be necessarily sacrificed for earning religious merit on BakrI'd.

10.We may also mention one submission of Mr Tarkunde that India is a secular democratic country and, therefore, the State has to respect the wishes of minority. In the appeals at hand we are concerned with the short question whether in the light of clear wording of Section 12, the State can exempt from the operation of the Act slaughtering of healthy cows on BakrI'd. For deciding this, ours being a secular country would not be relevant. Mr Tarkunde next submitted that as per Gujara Rules slaughtering of cows on BakrI'd is considered a bona fide religious purpose. Even this aspect is not relevant for deciding the parameters of Section 12 of the West Bengal Act, even if that be the position in Gujarat presently, which is not so according to the learned counsel for the respondents.

11.We may also deal with the effort made by the learned counsel for the appellants to distinguish Quareshi case1 on the ground that for interpreting the term 'religious' under Articles 25 and 26, a restricted meaning was given for balancing the secular nature of democracy on the one hand and the interest of the individual so far as right to practise any religion is concerned on the other. In this connection, our attention was invited to the decisions of this Court in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj

v. State of Rajasthan 4 and Durgah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali5. These decisions are of no avail to the appellants as therein while dealing witthe question of validity of certain enactments, scope of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution was spelt out and nothing has been held in these decisions which is contrary to what was decided in Quareshi case1, which we have noted in detail. The effort made by teamed counsel for the appellants to get any and every religious practice covered by Section 12 also is of no avail for the simple reason that in the context of Section

12 the religious practice must be such which requires the invocation of exemption provision under Section 12 so as to bypass the main thrust of Section 4. For such an exercise non-essential religious practices cannot be made the basis. Reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Hazarat Pirmahomed Shah Saheb Roza Committee v. C.LT6 also is of no assistance as the same refers to Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, the scheme of which is entirely different from that of the Act. Even if we agree with learned counsel for the appellants that slaughter of a healthy cow on BakrI'd is for a religious purpose, so long as it is not shown to be an essential religious purpose as discussed by us earlier, Section 12 of the Act cannot be pressed in service for buttressing such a non-essential religious purpose.

12.Before parting we may mention that one preliminary objection was raised before theHighCourt aboutthe petitioners' locus standi to move the writ petition. The High Court held that it was a public interest litigation and the writ petitioners have sufficient locus standi to move the petition.That finding of the High Court was not challenged by any of the appellants. In our view rightly so as the writ petitioners representing a Hindu segment of society had felt aggrieved by the impugned exemption granted by the State.They had no personal interest but a general cause to project. Consequently, they had sufficient locus standi to move the petition. Rule 7 framed under the Act, provides that provisions of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950, shall not apply to the slaughter of any animal for religious, medicinal or research purpose subject to the condition that such slaughter does notaffect the religious sentiment of the neighbours of the person or persons performing such slaughter and that the previous permission of the State Government or any officer authorisedby it is obtained before the slaughter. The case of the original writ petitioners before the High Court was based onreligious sentiments and, therefore,they had moved this public interest litigation. In these circumstances, no fault could be found with the decision of the High Court recognizing locus standi of the original petitioners to move this public interest litigation which we have found to be well justified on merits.

13.In the result, we confirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss these appeals. Interim reliefs granted earlier during the pendency of the appeals shall stand vacated.Inthe facts & circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs……………

Sd/- J. Majumdar

Land mark Judgement on GOMALA given by Justice Markandey Kataju & Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra. This direction, if used, can provide grazing land to speechless animals

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132 /2011 @ SLP(C) No.3109/2011

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC No. 19869 of 2010)

Jagpal Singh & Ors. .. Appellant (s)

-versus-

State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondent (s)

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for

the appellants.

3. Since time immemorial there have been common lands inhering in the village communities in India, variously called gram sabha land, gram panchayat land, (in many North Indian States), shamlat deh (in Punjab etc.), mandaveli and poramboke land (in South India), Kalam, Maidan, etc., depending on the nature of user. These public utility lands in the villages were for centuries used for the common benefit of the villagers of the village such as ponds for various purposes e.g. for their cattle to drink and bathe, for storing their harvested grain, as grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan for playing by children, carnivals, circuses, ramlila, cart stands, water bodies, passages, cremation ground or graveyards, etc. These lands stood vested through local laws in the State, which handed over their management to Gram Sabhas / Gram Panchayats.They were generally reated as inalienable in order that their status as community land bepreserved. There were no doubt some exceptions to this rule which permitted the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat to lease out some of this land to landless labourers and members of the scheduled castes/tribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases.

4.The protection of commons rights of the villagers were so zealously protected that some legislation expressly mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the State did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting. Thus, in Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya vs. Paladuge Anjayya, 1972(1) SCC 521 (529) this Court observed : "It is true that the suit lands in view of Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act did vest in the Government. That by itself does not mean that the rights of the community over it were taken away. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of law under which the rights of the community over those lands can be said to have been taken away. The rights of the community over the suit lands were not created by the landholder. Hence those rights cannot be said to have been abrogated by Section 3) of the Estates Abolition Act."

5.What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with its original character, for personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas.This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.

6.This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21.5.2010. By that judgment the Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 10.2.2010.

7. It is undisputed that the appellants herein are neither the owner nor the tenants of the land in question which is recorded as a pond situated in village Rohar Jagir, Tehsil and District Patiala. They are in fact trespassers and unauthorized occupants of the land relating Khewat Khatuni No. 115/310, Khasra No. 369 (84-4) in the said village. They appear to have filled in the village pond and made constructions thereon.

8. The Gram Panchayat, Rohar Jagir filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to evict the appellants herein who had unauthorizedly occupied the aforesaid land. In its petition the Gram Panchayat, Rohar Jagir alleged that the land in question belongs to the Gram Panchayat, Rohar as is clear from the revenue records. However, the respondents (appellants herein) forcibly occupied the said land and started making constructions thereon illegally. An application was consequently moved before the Deputy Commissioner informing him about the illegal acts of the respondents (appellants herein) and stating that theaforesaid land is recorded in the revenue records as Gair Mumkin Toba i.e. a village pond. The villagers have been using the same, since drain water of the village falls into the pond, and it is used by the cattle of the village for drinking and bathing. Since the respondents (appellants herein) illegally occupied the said land an FIR was filed against them but to no avail. It was alleged that the respondents (appellants herein) have illegally raised constructions on the said land, and the lower officials of the department and even the Gram Panchayat colluded with them.

9.Instead of ordering the eviction of these unauthorized occupants, the Collector, Patiala surprisingly held that it would not be in the public interest to dispossess them, and instead directed the Gram Panchayat, Rohar to recover the cost of the land as per the Collector's rates from the respondents (appellants herein). Thus, the Collector colluded in regularizing this illegality on the ground that the respondents (appellants herein) have spenthuge money on constructing houses on the said land.

10. Some persons then appealed to the learned Commissioner against thesaid order of the Collector dated 13.9.2005 and this appeal was allowed on12.12.2007. The Learned Commissioner held that it was clear that the Gram Panchayat was colluding with these respondents (appellants herein), and ithad not even opposed the order passed by the Collector in which directions were issued to the Gram Panchayat to transfer the property to these persons, nor filed an appeal against the Collector's order.

11. The learned Commissioner held that the village pond has been used for the common purpose of the villagers and cannot be allowed to be encroached upon by any private respondents, whether Jagirdars or anybody else. Photographs submitted before the learned Commissioner showed that recent attempts had been made to encroach into the village pond by filling it up with earth and making new constructions thereon. The matter had gone to the officials for removal of these illegal constructions, but no action was taken for reasons best known to the authorities at that time. The learned Commissioner was of the view that regularizing such kind of illegal encroachment is not in the interest of the Gram Panchayat. The learned Commissioner held that Khasra No. 369 (84-4) is a part of the village pond, and the respondents (appellants herein) illegally constructed their houses at the site without any jurisdiction and without even any resolution of the GramPanchayat.

12. Against the order of the learned Commissioner a Writ Petition was filed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court which was dismissed by the judgment dated 10.2.2010, and the judgment of learned Single Judge has been affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal.

13.We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village. The letter dated 26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years.

14. In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, 1999(6) SCC 464 the Supreme Court ordered restoration of a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at the cost of over Rs.100 crores. In Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa, 2004 (8) SCC 733 this Court held that even where the law permits compounding of unsanctioned constructions, such compounding should only be by way of an exception. In our opinion this decision will apply with even greater force in cases of encroachment of village common land. Ordinarily, compounding in such cases should only be allowed where the land has been leased to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a school for the villagers, or a dispensary for them.

15. In many states Government orders have been issued by the State Government permitting allotment of Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money. In our opinion all such Government orders are illegal, and should be ignored.

16.The present is a case of land recorded as a village pond. This Court inHinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi,

AIR 2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(4)CTC 1 Madras) held that land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. The Court ordered the respondents to vacate the land they had illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house. We pass a similar order in this case.

17. In this connection we wish to say that our ancestors were not fools. They knew that in certain years there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reason, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple, etc.These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which served them for thousands of years.

18.Over the last few decades, however, most of these ponds in our country have been filled with earth and built upon by greedy people, thus destroying their original character.This has contributed to the water shortages in the country.

19.Also, many ponds are auctioned off at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with authorities/Gram Panchayatofficials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certainindividuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop.

20.In Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be compared with the original revenue record showing the land as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices.

21. For the reasons given above there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.

22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of GramSabha/Gram Panchayat / Poramboke / Shamlat land and these must be restored to the GramSabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/ Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should

References Case Laws

· Andhra Pradesh Highcourt at Hyderabad Crl.Rev P No. 604 of 1991 13.3.1992 on maintenance of custody

· Gujarat High Court on 16.8.1984 Justice MB Shah on maintenance custody

· Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore Misc. Cr. Case No.1538 of 1989 Dt. 30.11.1989 on maintenance of Interim custody

· Maharashtra Highcourt at Bombay WP 373 of 1987 on Interim Custody & maintenance Charges.

· Sec/154(1) Cr.PC on FIR recording mandatory for Police officer(1992) Sup(1) Supremecourt Cases 335 CA No.5412 of 1990 on 21.11.1990

· Sec. 301 Cr.PC Local Standi of Volunteers upheld (Cr. Misc. Case 25 of 1996 Dt. 19.1.1996 of Allahabad Highcourt at Lacknow

· Sec.301A IPC WP No.116 of 2001 of Allahabad Highcourt Civil Side Orig.Jur

only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of SC’s/ST’s, or wherethereis already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

23. Let a copy of this order be sent to all Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict and prompt compliance of this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time.

24. Although we have dismissed this appeal, it shall be listed before this Court from time to time (on dates fixed by us), so that we can monitor implementation of our directions herein.List again before us on 3.5.2011 on which date all Chief Secretaries in India will submit their reports.……..………

J.[MarkandeyKatju] ................

J. [Gyan Sudha Mishra]

New Delhi; January 28, 2011

(Question of interim Custody has been decided by hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the favor of Pinjrapol- goshala. The following orders are binding on Lowercourts &shallbe mentioned at the time of Claiming Interim Custody

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.283-287/2002

(Arising out of SLP(CRL)Nos. 2790,2793,2795,2797,2800/1999

State of U.P……Appellant V/S Mustakeem Ors….Respondents ORDER Leave Granted The State of U.P. is in appeal against the direction of the court directing release of the animals in favor of the owner. It is alleged that while those animals were transported for the purpose of being slaughtered and FIR was registered for alleged violation of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and the specific allegation in the FIR was that the animals were transported for being slaughtered and the animals were tied very tied very tightly to each other.

The Criminal case is still pending. On an appeal for getting the custody of the animals was filed.The impugned order has been passed. We are shocked as to how such an order could be passed by the learned Judge of the High Court in view of the very allegation & in view of the charges, which the accused may face in the criminal trial.

We therefore set aside the impugned order and direct that these animals be kept in the Gaushala & the State Government undertake the entire responsibility of preservation of those animals so long as the matter is under trial. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly Sd/- G.B. PATTANAIK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMIN AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.555 of 1989

(Arising out of special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.755 of 1989)

Go Bachao Samithi , Malkheda………………….Appellant V/ s.

State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr………………..Respondents

O R D E R

Special leave granted.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and relevant provisions, the Judgement and order Dt.2^nd November 1988, of the learned Additional Session Judge Shajapur (M.P.) are set aside and the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sunner Dist. Shajapur (M.P.) is restored. It is further directed that the trial pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sunner, dist Shajapur (M.P.) be disposed of with in a period of three months from this date pereoptorily.

The appeal is disposed of with these directions.

Sd/- J. Sabyasachi Mukharji J. B.C. Ray… New Delhi, Sept. 6, 1989

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 68-78 OF 1991

Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.1900-02of 1990

Sri Devi Prasad Mishra…Appellant

Versus State of U.P. & Anr…..Respondents

ORDERS

Leave Granted.

After hearing both counsel. We are of the opinion that the interests of Justice require that pending disposal of the Criminal matter pending before the lower Criminal Court II Allahabad, the custody of the cattle in question should remain with the organization known as GODHAM which is represented by the appellant in this case. The lower Court has already ordered that identification marks should be put on the cattle. This may be done & the Godham should look after & protect the cattle pending disposal of the matter in the Criminal Court. If the identification has not already been done respondent No.2 may be allowed to be present at the time when the identification marks are put on the cattle. Having regard to the interim direction given by us, we direct the criminal case to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. With these observations the appeals are disposed of. There is no order as to costs. (S.Ranganathan, S.C. Agarweal & N.D. Ojha) New DelhiDt.30-1-91

Honorable High Court of Karnataka Direction in Different Criminal Revision Petition to Lower Courts is ……..maintain the Interim Custody of Cattle with Gaushala, Pinjrapole to save their precious lives. THESE are binding on all Lower Courts :Some DIRECTIONS are appended for your comfort

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER 2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

Crl.P.No.3563/2014

BETWEEN:

Mysore Pinjarapol Society (Regd) Mysore

R/by its Member Dr. S.K. Mittal, S/o K.C.Mittal, Aged 62 years,

Mysore Pinjarapole Society Foot Chamundi Hill Mysore -570 025.

…PETITIONER

(By Sri.N. Ravindranath Kamath, Adv.,)

AND:

1. Shivalinge Gowda, S/o Beere Gowda, 40 years, Honnakumaranahalli, Gandasi Hobli, Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District 573 162.

2. State by Javagal Police Station, Javagal, Hassan District 573 162 R/by its Sub Inspector of Police RESPONDENTS (By Sri.Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R2; R-1 - Served)

This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that this Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in order dated 3.6.2014 in C.C.No.3251/13 on the file of the II Addl. C.J. and JMFC, Arasikere and examine the legality of the proceedings. This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere, in C.C.No.3251/2013 dated 3.6.2014.

3. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that the Javagal Police in Crime No.650/2013 have seized 16 buffaloes on the allegation that those animals were being transported for the purpose of slaughtering and thereby the accused persons have committed offences punishable under sections 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 etc. On production of the P.F.No.95/2013 at the initial stage those buffaloes at the request and instance of the Police have been handed over to the Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust at Arsikere town. The said Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust have taken the said animals to their custody and according to them, due to the inadequacy of the place, they have sent those animals to the Mysore Pinjrapole Society (petitioner herein) and infact the said Mysore Pinjrapole Society has received the said animals on 4 certain conditions and the acknowledgement under which the animals were received is also produced before this Court at page No.51.

4. The first respondent claiming himself to be the owner of three buffaloes, made an application under section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking interim custody of those animals. The learned Magistrate has released the said animals in favour of him. The learned counsel contends that no opportunity has been given by the learned Magistrate either to the Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust or to the petitioner before releasing the said animals. The learned Magistrate has ordered to release those animals on conditions. Having come to know about the said order, the said Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust has preferred a revision petition against the order of the learned Magistrate in Criminal Revision Petition No.226/2013 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan. The said criminal revision petition came tobe dismissed for default vide order dated 18.12.2013. The said order of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, has been challenged before this Court in Criminal Petition No.1974/2014. This Court vide order dated 4.8.2014 allowed the petition and restored the said criminal revision petition No.226/2013 on to the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, for disposal on merits within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

5. In the meantime, the first respondent being the applicant before the Trial Court has made another application under section 457 of Cr.P.C. on 1.4.2014making the present petitioner also as one of the respondents. In the said application, the petitioner has sought that the said Mysore Pinjrapole Society is not releasing the animals but they are demanding maintenance charges from the applicant. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties has passed an order rejecting the statement filed by the present petitioner and directed to 6 release the said animals as per the order dated 11.10.2013, if not the applicant is entitled to take assistance of the Police for such release etc. The claim of the petitioner herein with regard to the maintenance charges was kept open by the Magistrate to be urged before the appropriate forum. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.3251/2013 dated 3.6.2014 is under challenge before this Court.

6. On perusal of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that at the time of releasing the animals in favour of the first respondent therein, the learned Magistrate has not given any opportunity to the Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust or to this present petitioner and they have not been heard with regard to their statement filed before the Court subsequently. Even the learned Magistrate has rejected the statement filed by the said Mysore Pinjrapole Society with regard to claiming of maintenance etc. On perusal of the 7orders passed by the learned Magistrate under section 457, it is virtually deciding the right of the petitioner herein, Mysore Pinjrapole Society with regard to the claim made by them with regard to the maintenance amount etc. Therefore, in my opinion, that order is also revisable before the Sessions Court. However it is seen that a revision petition is already pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, challenging the earlier order of the Magistrate in releasing the animals in favour of the respondent. The petitioner herein is also at liberty to file appropriate revision petition before the same Court challenging the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 3.6.2014 (impugned in this petition) for appropriate remedies. In the event of the petitioner filing any revision petition challenging the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 3.6.2014 in C.C.No.3251/2013, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge has to club both the revision petitions, that means to say, hear the revision petition earlier filed in Criminal Revision Petition No.226/2013 along with the revision petition proposed to be filed by the present petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

7. Having come to such conclusion, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, in my opinion, is very harsh and it is coercive in nature. The learned Magistrate also should have borne in mind that the petitioner Society is a Society which is a social organization which is working for the benefit of the society at large. Whether they are entitled for maintenance amount, cost or not, opportunity should have been given by the learned Magistrate in this regard before passing such orders. Therefore, such coercive orders, in my opinion, should not be enforced till the rights of the parties are adjudicated by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge in the above said criminal revision petitions. Hence, I issue an order of stay insofar as order of the learned Magistrate dated 3.6.2014 in C.C.No. 3251/ 2013 is concerned till the petitioner making 9any application in criminal revision petition before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge and till the disposal of the said application, this order of stay shall continue. With these observations, the this criminal petition deserves to be disposed of.

Accordingly, it is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBURARY,1997

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SREENIVASA RAO

Between:

Mysore Pinjrapole society Chamundi Hill Foot, Mysore Represented byn Sri S. Sampath Rao and N. Umesh ……………..PETITIONERS

(By. Sri Vagdevi Associates, Adv)

And;

1. The State of Karnataka ny Mandi Police, Mysore

2. Javaregowda aged 40 years Doora Village, Jayapura Road, Mysore

3. Gangaiah S/O. Sanjeeviah,

Aged 42 years, Bettahalli N R Patna Tq, Mandya Dist.

4. Syed S/o Rasool aged 20 years, Moogur. TN Pura Tq.

5. Puttegowda S/O late Kempegowda

Aged about 45 years, Singarigowdana, KoppalMelkote hobli, Pandavpura Tq, Mandya Dist

6. Javaregowda S/O. Kempegowda aged about 32 years,

ingarigowdana Koppal, Pandvpura Tq, Mandya dist.,

7.Javaregowda S/o. Late Karigowda, aged about 37 years aingarigowdana koppal, Pandvpura Hobli, Mandya Dist

(By Sri N.B. Vishwanath HCGP for R-1,

Sri Tazuddin, Adv for R-2 to R-7) ………………… RESPONDENTS

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed U/S 397 Cr. P. C to set aside the order dated 17-12-1997 passed by theI A.C.J.M. Mysore and also direct for further investigation in Cr. 128/97 of Mandi Police Station.

This Crrp coming on for hearing this day the court made the following O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioners u/s 397 Cr.P.C against the order passed on 17-10-1997 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore in Crime No.128/97 of the Mandi police Station, accepting ‘B’ Report filrd by the police and rejecting the application filed by the Revision Petitioner for further investigation of the case Heard the Counsel for Revision Petitioner, counsel for Respondent 2 to 4 and Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 7.

2. The main grounds urged by the counsel for the Revision petitioner are that the learned Magistrate erred in accepting the B Report and directing the cattle to be returned to the claimants without affording opportunity to the petitioner and the investigating officer recorded the statements of the purchaser and sellers who ought to have been arrayed as accused persons in view of the Karnataka prevention of Cow slaughter and Cattle preservation Act, 1964. The Investigating officer has not recorded the statements of the Mahazar witnesses who were actually eye witnesses and reported the matter/ During the course of the order, the learned CJM has dealt with all objections raised by the revision petitioner. It has been observed during the course of the order that the investigating officer has not recorded the statements of the sellers of the Cattle and also the alleged purchasers namely Javaregowda, Puttegowda and another Javaregowda and accused were transporting the said cattle at the time of Seizure of those cattle. In view of the investigation conducted by the investigating officer to the effect that material placed on record do not show that those cattle were being taken for the purpose of slaughter. The materials collected by the investigating officer in the case in the form of statement u/s 161 Cr.p. c shows that present claimants Javaregowda, Puttegowda and another Javaregowda are the purchasers of Cattle and those cattle had been entrusted to the accused in the course of their business of selling cattle as commission agents for the purpose of sale in shandy to be held at a place called ‘Thandeekere’.3. It has been stated by the CJM that again referring the case for further investigation u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C., that investigating officer has not recorded the Statements of material witnesses of the mahazar serves no purpose as there is no further scope for investigation in view of the facts narrated by the investigating officer and held that the cattle seized from the persons who have purchased them and they were taking the couple to the shandy as they were doing cattle trading. Theessence of the offence that the cattle being taken to slaughter house can not be interfered with. But it I that to be seen that ve not recorded. the Mahazar dated 7-10-1997 drawn in the early hours at 6 to 6.30 am. It has been mentioned that the persons were taking the cattle to slaughter house and they have committed offence under Karnataka Prevention of cow slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964. The witnesses to these Mahazar three persons have been mentioned and their statements have not recorded is the main contention for the revision Petition. As per Section 9 of the Act is to the effect that no person shall purchase, offer, sell or otherwise dispose of or offer to purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or caused to be purchased, sold or otherwise disposed of cows or colces of the she buffaloes for slaughter of knowing or reason to believe that such cattle shall be slaughtered. The statements of the Mahazar witnesses of the mahazar are material with respect to the essence of the offence and it has been seriously urged that the investigation does not disclose those persons have been enquired into or questioned or their statements have been recorded 4. Under the circumstances the matter has to be remitted back to the Magistrate with a direction to direct further investigation in this aspect and to dispose of the matter with respect to the acceptance of the final report

5. for the reasons mentioned above, the order passed by learned I Addl. CJM, Mysore in crime No.128/97 dated 17-12-1997 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back with a direction to direct the investigating officer to further investgate into the matter with respect to the statement of the witnesses of the spot mahazar and to furnish report and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly the Revision Petition is allowed in part.

It is further directed that the matter may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible giving direction to the concerned investigating officer. The matter may be disposed of with in four months from the date of receipt of the order by the Magistrate

Sd/- Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23^rd OF JANUARY, 2004

BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTHANGOUDAR

CRL..PET. NO:1831 of 2003

BETWEEN

Akhila Karnataka Prani Daya Sangha

80’Road, 6^th Block,Koramangla, Bangalore

Rep/by shanthilal B. Jain

S/O Badarmal Ji R/O Church Circle TUMKUR (By KV Narasimhan,Adv) PETITIONER

AND

1.Amarnarayanapa S/O. L Govludaiah Major R/O Marsalu Tumkur

2.Tumkur Town Police, Tumkur

Rep.By the Public proscoutor . Respondents

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC praying to stay aside the order dated 25.5.2003 passed by thr Pri.SJ/ Tumkur in Cr.R.P. No.65 / 2003 and the order Dated 5.3.2003 passed by the IInd Addl C.J.(Jr. dn.) and JMFC Tumkur TQ Cr. No.55/2003

The petition coming for admission this day the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Sri M. Marigowda learned Additional S.P.P. taken notice for the 2^nd respondent

2. The 3nd respondant herein in charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 8 and 11 of the Prevention of Cow slaughter & Cattle Preservation Act 1964. The matter is pending trial in C.C. No. 1167/2003 before the learned iiAdditional Civil Judge (Jr. divn.) and JMFC. Tumkur

3. By virtue of interim order granted by this court cattle are in possession of the petitioner herein. As already the Chargesheet is filed against the 1^st respondant, I feel that interest of justice will be met, if a direction is issued to the Trial court to dispose of the case as expeditiadly as possible. Under the dioca and circumstances of the case, the possession of the cattle shall be continued in and possession of the petitioner, which is a volintary organisation.

4. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the impugned orders for the present as the trial itself can be expidiated by the Trial court. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:

a) The Trial court is directed to dispose of ther C.C. No.1157 /2003 as expeditiously as possible but not later than the outer limit of six months from today.

b) The intrim custody of the cattle in question shall continue in the possession of the petitioner herein during the period of trial Sd/- Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated the 20^th Day of August,1999

Before

The hon’ble JUSTICE S.R.BANNURMATH

CRIMINALK REVISION PETITION No.521of 1999

Mysore Pinjrapole society, Mysore, Chamundi Hill Foot

Rep.by its Hon’rary Member SriN.Umesh……… PETITIONER

(By Sri H.K. Ramachandra and Sri H.K. Keshava Murthy adv.)

-: VERSUS :-

1. Riyaz S/o. late Salmaan Khan, 27, gutter Colony, Fasor Ahmed

mohalla, Mandya

2. State by T. Narsipura Police, T. Narsipura…… RESPONDANTS

(By Sri Tajuddin Adv. For Res.1 & Sri S.S.Koti Additional State Puiblic Prosecutor for Res.-2)

Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure code to set aside the order dated 29.7.1999 passed in Cr. No. 126 of 1999 of T. Narsipura Police, on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, T. Narsipura, Mysore district, releasing the callle i.e.,20 she buffaloes and 2 male calves of buffaloes. This revision petition coming up for admission this day, the court made the following

O R D E R

Though this petition is posted for admission. As the respondents are served and Respondent-1,is represented by the learned Counsel and Respondent-2 is represented by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, with the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal

The present revision arises from the orders dated 29-7-1999 and 2-8-1999 passed by the learned Registrar in respect of interim custody of the cattle.

The brief facts of the case are as follows: In the intervening night of 27^th and 28^th July, 1999 the Sub Inspector of police, while on round at about 1.0’ clock in the night in T. Narsipura, found the lorry bearing Registration No. MEY 5633 and on suspicion checked the same. Besides the Driver and three passengers, he found in the lorry 20 she buffaloes and 2 calves. It is alleged that the hind portion of the lorry was covered with Tarpaulin and on questioning by the PSI it is alleged, the driver and passengers stated that they were transporting these cattle from Mandya to the State of Kerala via Gundulpet for slaughter house. According to the Police, as required under Section 5 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and /Cattle Preservation Act 1964 (hereinafter referred as the Cow Act) and the rules made there under there being no certificate from competent authority and seeing the bad conditions of the cattle, a case in Crime No.126 of 1999 has been registered for the violation of the provisions of 11(a) and (d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as PCA Act) and Section 8(2) of Restriction and Transport of Cow Slaughter the mysore Act,1964. As an interim measure, as the police could not look after the cattle, the animals were sent to the petitioner I . e. Mysore Pinjrapole Society at Mysore. Thereafter, Respondent -1 claiming to be the owner of the cattle and another person who is the owner of the lorry filed application for release of the cattle and lorry respectively in their favor . By the order dated 29-7-1999n the learned Magistrate Ordered release of the cattle in favor of Respondent -1 and the lorry in favor of the owner who claimed the same. Aggrieved by the release of the cattle, only the petitioner filed an application claiming custody of the cattle as preferential right in view of the facts and circumstances of the case over respondent-1 / owner. This claim was considered by the learned Magistrate and by the impugned order dated 2-8-1999 rejected the same. Hence the present revision petition.

Sri H.K. Keshava Murthy learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that keeping in view the allegations, especially causing cruelty to the cattle in question while transporting the same and taking the cattle for slaughter to another State without permit and as such the violation of the Cow Act, it was not proper for the Court below to release the same in favor of Respondent -1. It is stated that as the cattle were entrusted to the Petitioner from 27/28-7-1999 till date, the learned Magistrate ought not to have released the same in favor of Respondent -1. It is further contended that as per prima facie allegations, theInvestigation and the statements of the accused themselves show that the cattle were being taken for slaughtering. If the cattle were handed over back to the owner, the very purpose of initiating action would be defeated, as there is every likelihood of cattle being sent to slaughter house.Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of the learned and to grant interim custody to the petitioner.

With these observations. This petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 29-7-1999 and 2-8-1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, T. Narsipura are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below to dispose of the application afresh. Admittedly, as the Cattle are in the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to continue to hold them in custody till appropriate order is passed by the Court below.

On the other hand Sri Tajuddin, learned counsel for respondent-1, relying upon the observations of the Apex Court in the case of MANAGER, PINJARAPOLE DEVDAR AND ANOTHER V/ CHAKRAM MORAJI NAT AND OTHERS (1998(6) S.C.C. 420) CONTENDED THAT AS THE Pinjarapole has no preferential right over the owner claiming custody of the animals, the claim of the petitioner itself is not maintainable. Further he submitted that Respondent-1 is the purchaser of the Cattle and having purchased the same at Tiptur, he was taking them to Gundulpet via T. Narsipura for the purpose of selling and, in the mean time, the same has been seized by the police on false charges. As Such the finding of the Court below that he was entitled for interim custody of the cattle and hence the impugned order and need no interference.

AS the State is also a Party, heard Sri SS Koti learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, also.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on various decisions of other Courts trid to establish the preferential right of Pinjarapole over the owner. In view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court, it is clear that under Section 35(2) of PCA Act, the learned Magistrate has the discretion to hand over interim custody of the animals either to the owner or to Pinjarapole. . In the aforesaid case, the Honorable Supreme Court on find that the Magistrate has exercised the discretionary power judiciously and as such held that Pinjarapole has no preferential right over the owner. However, it is further held laid down that if the allegation are under the provisions of the PCA Act (or for that matter under the provisions of Cow Act) before passing Such the finding of the Court below that he was entitled for interim custody of the cattle and hence the impugned order and need no interference.

As the State is also a Party, heard Sri SS Koti learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, also

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on various decision of other Courts tried to establish the preferential right of Pinjarapole over the owner. In view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court, it is clear that under Section 35(2) of PCA Act, the learned Magistrate has the discretion to hand over interim custody of the animals either to the owner or to Pinjarapole. . In the aforesaid case, the Honorable Supreme Court on find that the Magistrate has exercised the discretionary power judiciously and as such held that Pinjarapole has no preferential right over the owner. However, it is further held laid down that if the allegation are under the provisions of the PCA Act (or for that matter under the provisions of Cow Act) before passing the Order of release of the cattle as interim measure either to the owner or to the Pinjarapole the learned Magistrate is required to consider the following factors:-

1. The nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the owner:

2. Whether it is the first offence or he has been found guilty of offences under the Act earlier;

3. If the owner is facing the first prosecution under the Act the animal is not liable to be seized. So the owner will have a better claim for the custody of the animal during the prosecution

4. The condition in which the animals was found at the time of inspection and seizure

5. The possibility of the animal being again subjected to cruelty the There can not be any doubt that establishment of the Pinjarapole is with the laudable object of the preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals and providing protection to them. But it should also be seen:

a) whether the pinjrapole is functioning as an independent organization or underthe the scheme of the Board and is answerable to the Board: and

b) whether the pinjarapole has a good record of taking care of the animals given under its custody

The factors and the guidelines issued show that the Apex Court was concerned with the right of the owner of the cattle as well as the aims and objects of the two acts. Viz., (1)Cow Act and (2) PCA Act On hearing the learned counsel on both sides as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. It is seen that there is no sufficient material before this Court as to find out prima facie the correctness or otherwise of the allegation and the defense and in view of the non application of the guidelines issued by the Honorable Supreme court of India by the trial court, it will be just and proper to direct the learned Magistrate to reconsider the rival claims of the parties for interim custody and then pass appropriate orders.

In view of what is stated above,the impugned orders are to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned Magistrate to consider afresh the claims of iterim custody of the cattle in accordance with law and in the light of the principles and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the Pinjarapole’s case (referred to supra) since it is a case of custody of cattle, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application within 4 week from the date of receipt of this order. The State is also directed to furnish all material reports of the Investigation in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court of forthwith to the court below in order pass appropriate orders.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Criminal Petition No.258 of 1998

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 1999

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUSTICE M.M NARAYAN BETWEEN:

Shree Mahaveer Jain goshala Koppal, Raichur District,

By B. Shanthilal Secretary………………..Petitioner

(By Sri HK Ramachandra, Advocate)

AND

1. State by Gajendragad Police, Dharwad Dist.

2. Mohamand Farook S/O. Sbdulsab Choudri, age: Major Kasaba Mohalla Islampur Oni, Old Hubli, Hubli

3. Abdulgani S/O. Abdulmajid. Bepari, R/O. Fathan Galli, Old Hubli, Hubli.

4. Ajij Saab, S/O Umarsab Bepari, age major S/o. Pathan Galli, Old Hubli, Hubli,

5. Budasaab Urf Ibrahimsab S/O. Abdul Karimsab Bepari, R/o. Kasaba Mohalla, Islampur Oni, Old Hubli, Hubli,

6. Ramegouda, S/O Naganagowda Patil age: major, r/o Kurthatti, Tq. Ron

7. Adivappa S/O. Sabappa Yaragatti, R/O Kurhatti, Taluk Ron ….Respondent

(By Sri S.S. Koti. Addl. SPP for R.1) This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 Cr. P. c. to set aside the order dt. 23.3.96 passed by the Munsiff & JMFC Ron, Dharwad District in C.C. No. 754/96 in pursuance of the order dtd 29/5/96 passed by the Prl. S.J Dharwad in Crl. R.P. 91/96 & 91/96(common order).

This criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER

This matter coming for admission is taken up as final disposal, heard and disposed of by this order.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Addl.SPP for R.1 Counsel for A-2 to A-8 absent.

3. Petitioner herein is in charge of Goshala at Koppal. Some Cattles were seized from the custody of the accused person for violation of the provisions of Mysore Prevention of Cow slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, and Gajenderagad Police has registered a Criminal Case in Crime No. 12/96. The Cattle which were seized by the police were handed over to the Gaushala.

4. J.M.F.C. has passed an order to conduct public auction and to sell the cattles. It is submitted that, if the cattle are sold in the public auction, the very purpose of seizure of the cattle will be in vain as the Goshala is ready to protect the lives of the cattles. It is also submitted that the Goshala undertake to maintain the cattle till the final disposal of the Criminal Case pending against the accused persons in the Trial Court.

5. In the light of these submissions, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Magistrate is quashed.

Sd/- Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated THE 25^th DAY OF MARCH, 1999

Present: The Hon’ble The Chief Justice & Hon’ble Justice A.M.Farooq

WRIT PETITION NO 9344/99 (GM RES PIL)

The Akhil Karnataka PraniDaya Sangh(Regd. Society)

Tank Bund, 80’ feet Road, 6^th Block, Koramangla, Bangalore 34

Rep. by Hon. Prest Sri.G.goenka

(Sri H.K. Ramachandra Adv.) Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The secretary to Govt. Home Dept. State of Karnataka Viddhan Soudha,Bangalore.1

2. The Director General of Police in Karnataka

3. The Commr. Of police, Infantry Road, Bangaore City

4.The Commissioner Corporation of the City of Bangalore, B’lore

5. Secretary to Govt. Animal husbandry Dept. Vidhan Saudha Bang.

6. Director, Animal Husbandry Dept. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,Bang. …………….Respondent

Whereas a writ petition filed by the above named petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been registered by this Court

After hearing the Court made the following

O R D E R

There shall be stay of slaughtering of Cows, Calves and She Buffaloes Counter in three weeks

Copy of the order be given to the learned Counsel today

Sd/- Chief Justice

Sd/- Judge

REQUEST

We regret for MISTAKE, if any and request to please inform any correction, addition, deletion up date & your valuable Suggestions in the interest of compession to valuable speechless animals.

Dr. SK Mittal (B.Com Hons) LLM, P.hD

I N D E X

गोवंश का प्रभाव

हिन्दू, मुस्लमान हो, सिख हो या ईसाई

गोमाता की तो सभी से दोस्ती और यारी है

हम झंडा गोवंश विकास का ले कर निकले है

आई देश में नयी क्रांति की बारी है

गोवंश किसी राजनीति के नहीं मोहताज हैं

उल्टा राजनीति गौवंश की कर्जदार है

देश की आज़ादी दो बैलों ने दिलवाई थी

इंदिरा जी की नैया गाय बछड़े ने पार लगायी थी

जब से हाथ इसे दिखाया है
देख लो कैसा समय पाया है

आज फिर इन्हें उस ही ऊँचाई पर ले जाना है दुग्धक्रांतिगोबरबिजली,खाद बैलशक्ति अजमाना है

आने वाला समय बड़ा जालिम दिखता है

रोज पेट्रोल के दाम बढ़ाना किसे अच्छा लगता है

वैकल्पिक उर्जा के साधन निकालने होंगे

पशु शक्ति, गोमय उत्पादन काम में लाने होंगे

नहीं तो.…………

देश की आर्थिक स्तिथि बिगड़ती रहेगी

विदेशी मुद्रा लगती रहेगी

मानव सेहत नकली दूध,और अन्न से बिगड़ती रहेगी

कृषि सस्ती होगी नहीं

किसान कीआत्महत्या चलतीरहेगी

गोवंश ग्राम, स्त्रीशक्ति, कृषि, ग्राम रोजगार का आधार है

करुणा दया अहिंसाकसाई से रक्षा की कररहापुकार है

नींद आती नहीं चैन पड़ता नहीं,

कसम गौमाता की हम रुकेंगे जब तक नहीं

जब तक गौमाता के वध का कलंक हमारे माथे से हटेगा नही

गौ वंश करे पुकार

गौवंश करे पुकार

मुझे भी सुनले मोदी सरकार

अमित पर अमिट विस्वास
अब बच जाएगी मेरी साँस

९ करोड़ प्रति वर्ष काटे जा रहे
या सीमापार कर पाक बांग्ला भेजे जा रहे

देश को आज़ादी हमने दिलवाई थी
इंद्रा की नैया भी हमने पार लगायी थी

देश के लुटेरो ने षड्यंत्र किया
हमे काटा और देश को पीया

हम देश ग्राम उत्थान के आधार

बिजली,पानी, ईंधन देने तैयार

खेती सस्ती हम कर सकते
विदेशी मुद्रा आयात रोक बचा सकते

युवा रोजगार का हम साधन
स्त्री शक्ति का करते पालन

हे मेरे नरेंदर, मेरे अमित
लिख डालो मेरी सुरक्षा का अध्याय अमिट

मै सुख उन्नति, प्रगति,

स्वास्थ्य का करती वादा

पांच नहीं पचास वर्ष भी

तू ही भारत भाग्य विधाता
जय गोमाता। .......... जय गौमाता

………..डॉ.श्रीकृष्ण मित्तल

You can read many more poems of Dr. SK Mittal in bhulibisriyaaden.blogspot..com & articles in gaumata.blogspot.com & karnatakastategosevaayog.blogspot.com

Few words about Dr. SK Mittal

Animal lover, Samaj Ratan Dr.Shri Krishan Mittal is known for his vision and committed work to serve the Nation. His Moto is “ Helping hands are more holier than speaking LIPS”

Born in Delhi in 1951 in Agarwal family of Rajasthan Dr. Mittal completed B. Com (Hons) from Delhi University studied Law in Mysore University and specilised in Animal Safety Laws. He was awarded LLM & Doctorate from Belford USA.

Receipient of appreciation from Smt. Indira Gandhi Ji, Dr.Mittal’s leadership was recognized right as student when he was elected as Supreme Councillor of Delhi University Students Union in 1971. As a reformer became instrumental in altering the Election System from indirect to Direct election of DUSU which gave leaders like Sri Arun Jaitly, Vijay Goyal etc.

Industrialist by profession Dr. Mittal established number of Chemical, Steel Metal, Tarpulin, Fertilizer units in Delhi, Hariana, UP, Bihar & Karnataka. To prove the economic viability of Cow progeny he established World’s 1st production line for Cow dung based Particle Board and many products using Cow dung and Cow urine.

Dr. SK Mittal is receipant of national prestigious recognitions like Udyog Patra by H.E. President of India Dr. S.D.Sharma, Udyog Ratna, Samaj Ratan, Karuna Sagar, Service to Ph. Handicapped etc.Dr. SK Mittal is invited by many State, National, Government and NGO fand humbly served the cause

as:

·Incharge Karnataka & Kerala & Member: AWBI Govt. of India

·Executive Member: Karnataka State Goseva Ayog, Govt. of Karnataka

·Member: Kerala State Animal Welfare board, Govt. of Kerala

·Hon.Animal Welfare officer: Animal Welfare Board of India Govt.of india

·Vice President: SPCA Mysore Mysore Admn

·Founder President: Karnataka Goshala Mahasangh ®

·Founder President: Akhil Karnataka Gauraksha Sangh®

·Chairman-Legal Sub committee: Mysore Pinjrapole Society

·Vice President: All India Goshala Federation®

·National Co-convener : BJP Cow Development Cell

·Nationa com.Member Bhartiya govans RakshanSamvardhan Parishat

Publication of Dr. SK Mittal

1. Welcome Rotarian” 2. Triveni “A Bulletin of R.I.Asst. Dist. Governer Dr. SK Mittal

3. Gau Raksha – Gagar Me Sagar 4. Gau Ganga

5. Animal Safety Law Guide of Karnataka -1^st addition

6. Report of National Cattle commission in Kannada

7. Mysore Agarwal Sandesh 8. Mysore Pinjrapole Sandesh

9. Karnataka goshala Sandesh

1o Legal Safety of cow from Illegal Marketing Transportation & slaughter

सोमवार, 27 अक्तूबर 2014

Animal Safety Law Guide of Karnataka - 2nd Addition

गौ वंश करे पुकार

You can read many more poems of Dr. SK Mittal in bhulibisriyaaden.blogspot..com & articles in gaumata.blogspot.com & karnatakastategosevaayog.blogspot.com

कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:

फ़ॉलोअर