West Bengal Animal Safety Law guide

West Bengal Animal safety Law guide was released in a GALA function held in Bangur Avenue Kolkata and by his holiness Adi Sankaracharya Puri Peethadhipati Sri Sri Sampurnanand Sarswati

SNo	INDEX PARTICULARS	PageNo
1	From the Pen of Dr. SK Mittal	1
2	Opposition to slaughter House: A vision	2
3	Goseva Ayog Constitution a requirement	3
4	Action Plan to prevent Illegal Transportation	5
5	Crime Chart	10
6	Model F.I.R	11
7	Performa Criminal Revision Petition U/S.397	15
8.	Advice to Police & Prosecution	16
9	Constitution of India – Provisions	15
10	The Code of Criminal Prodedure (Cr.P.C)	17
11	Indian Penal code (I P C )	21
12	Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (Ch.III) Transport of Catle Rules (Ch.IV) Certificate of Fitness to travel Cattle (Sch.H) P PCA (Slaughter House) Rules 2001 PCA (SPCA) Rules,2001	22 24 25 27 33
13	The West Bengal Animal slaughter Control Act.1950	35
14	The West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act, 1959	37
	COURT DIRECTIONS
15	Dire.ction of eviction of Grazing Lands SC.CA1132/2011	42
16	On Maintenance of Interim Custody SC . CA 68-78 of 1991 SC. CA 283-287/2002 SC. CA 555 of 1989	47
	No.Sacrifice on Bakar Id day S.C. CA.6790/1983	50
17	High Court of Kolkata WP 16749(W) of 2011 I.O. Dt.13.10.2011 WP 16749(W) of 2011 Order Dt. 2/11/2011 WP.31190 (w) of 2013 Order Dt.3/10/2013 W.P. 31522(w)of 2013 Order Dt.9/10/13	57
18	Karnataka High court directions on Maintenance of Interim Custody and Charges Crl.P No.6563/2014 Crl.P 1831/2003 Crl.P No. 521of 1999 Crl.P No. 2580f 1998	65 72

- By the pen of Dr. SK Mittal

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

West Bengal with 16+ million bovin live stock enacted West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act in 1950 much before than adoption of Constitution of India and Directions to States. By Freedom fighter and Great animal lover Dr. Vidhanchandra Roy. In 1971 Bangla Desh was carved with milions of Refugies infltration to Bengal. It changed the political equlibrum and then West Bengal Government illegally invoked Section 12 of above Act and permitted Cow Sacrifice on Baqur Id Day. It was turned down in 1983 by Honorable Kolkata High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld this decesion dismissing West Bengal Govt’s Appeal in 1996. Millions of Healthy Cows are slaughtered every year in spite of citizen cry due to utter ignorance of Law of the land.

Millions of Cattle illegally smuggled to Bangla Desh crossing International Boarders,River and Sea births in spite of the presence of State Police, BSF, Coast Guards, RTO, Animal Husbandry officials

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..

As per Indian Motor Vehicle Act Sec.125 and State 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. West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, WB Cattle Licencing Act, 1959 etc.

Hon’ble Supreme court and State High Courts have 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 West Bengal Animal Safety Law Guide will , again. 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

Slaughter House opposition: A Vision

Slaughter House installation by Civic bodies is a sensitive issue and always agitate animal lovers. Union and State Governments are providing Grants with open hands. In name of shifting old slaughter houses from inside Cities and installing out side city limits heinous animal killing scams are in execution.

Situation: Provision of Slaughter house installation is existing in Municipal Corporation Acts. There are stringent Acts and Rules also to STOP illegal Slaughter Houses and safeguarding precious animal lives.But under the shelter of Fundamental principles of Constitution of India different Honorable Courts had provide Stay in favor of butchers tightening Police and Government hands.

I had the occasion of inspecting Slaughter houses of Karnataka and Kerala under the Direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as In charge of Karnataka & Kerala of Animal Welfare Board of India, Govt. of India and could place the mistakes and opinion which were upheld and circulated by the Honorable Supreme Court to whole nation.

Municipal Slaughter Houses are given on lease at very low cost which is seen insufficient even in keeping part time sweeper and for depend on government doctors for Ante mortem & Post Mortem which is total in non existence, compelling the consumer to eat contaminated .

Old Slaughter places are normally seen with in city limits and to follow Rules and Honorable Court Guide lines, public opposition starts when Civic bodies proceed for new slaughter house and in result Citizen and consumer faces the consequence .

It is a fact that majority of population is found non vegetarian but it is also a fact that maximum do not eat Cow beef or Pig Pork.

· It is also true that slaughter brings pollution, Disease, Character loss, shortage of water, bad smell like bad elements. slaughter in public place and vision of Carcass after slaughter attack public and religious sentiments and hurt public mental. It is also a fact that animal is also a God creation and Gift and its killing attacks environment and makes national agriculture and employment unprofitable. I can place many facts against slaughter house installation.

· Union and State Acts and laws are not mum or dumb on this issue. There are many statuary provisions and even our honorable Courts have taken cognizance and issued directions on the subject, time and again.

Provisions of Acts and Rules?

Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India directs that The new slaughter house shall be located in accordance with CPCB guidelines viz., the Slaughter house shall be located outside or on the periphery of the City / town and shall be away from the Airport. Main services as water, electricity and waste disposal facility are prerequisite २ PCA (Slaughter House) Rules,2001 (3) The municipal or the 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 slaughter house is situated, determined the maximum number of animals that may be slaughtered in a day.

३Constitution of India Fundamental Principle Section 51-A(g) Section 243(W)Schedule12&Section21,Directiveprinciple48(A) etc are discussed and established by Ho’ableSupreme Court of India and different Honorable High Courts .

४ Honorable Chief Justice Sri Ramesh Chander Lahoti constituted Constitution Bench of 7 learned Judges and decided against Fundamental right of Slaughtering of Cow progeny. In Writ Petition 309/2003 preferred by Sri LN Modi VS Govt. of India & others, Hon'ble Supreme Court is monitoring Slaughter houses and directing again and again. Latest one was the direction of constitution of State Committee on Slaughter Houses with Retired District Judge as its convener. The main consideration is to shift old slaughter houses running with in Cities to out side city, To reduce pressure on Sanitation line, to crack down and close illegal slaughter houses, etc.

५ Honorable Karnataka High Court while rejecting prayer of Butchers association in WP 44529/2001 directed Mysore Corporation

“ It is quite clear that there is a lot of opposition for the functioning of the Abattoir and it does not appear to be with out reason. While functioning of an abattoir may be necessary in order to harvest meat, at the same time, it is equally important to ensure that it is done in a proper manner and without causing hazard to the public health and their religious sentiments. It has also transpired during the arguments that authorities are looking for a suitable place to locate the abattoir that could ensure that slaughtering takes place without putting public health at risk. In these circumstances, it would not be fair and proper to give direction as aught for by petitioner-Association. Instead it would be just and proper to direct the authorities to find a suitable place for location of the abattoir while at the same time taking care that such location does not expose the public to any health hazard”.

6 In July, 2014, Honorable Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the prayer on violation of Capacity clause of PCA (Slighter House) Rules, 2001.

7 Parliament (Rajaysabha)Petition Committee under the Chairmanship of Sri Bhagat Singh Koshiyari MP received thousands of petitions against Slaughter Houses and issued worthy directions against nationwide slaughter houses installation.

it can be seen that Union & State governments and Civic bodies are proceeding for the installation of Modernized Mechanical Slaughter Houses spending valuable Taxpayer money against public sentiment and in violation of different statuary obligations . It agitate public and commence long agitation, unrest, strikes, etc. In this cover, illegally running slaughter activities goes unchecked compelling the consumer to consume unhygienic, contaminated, illegally produced meat. We have to think on the subject today and precede towards the solution Some facts: viz;Slaughter house is an industry and vocation like a flour mill, spice mill, bread factory etc. and not the social requirement.

· Corporations are not authorized to install or run slaughter house for export

· Corporations are not authorized to install Slaughter houses in City limit.

· Civic, District, State & Central Authorities and Administration shall work to close illegal slaughter in their respective capacities and areas jointly and severely.

· Civic bodies provide these installations on lease on such low fee which even not sufficient to employ part time sweeper where is the question of a Vet. Doctor.

· Civic bodies normally do not consult local public before deciding about location or capacity. Even the consumption pattern and need is not seen assessed. Availability of required animals is not ensured. like pork is nonreligious in Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs thinks even touching of Cow beef inauspicious, Janis and Vaishnavs even do not relish look of meat.

· Civic bodies shall consider the

availability of number of different Animals and their utility in Agriculture and other trades

· Responsibilities and issue to dealt by Civic bodies are very large hence they shall avoid this anti public, polluted activity of slaughter house installation.

If the Civic bodies still decide to proceed than they shall ensure in advance the proper implementation of different statutory obligations and directions and decisions pronounced by different honorable Courts.

· Location and Capacity fixation of the proposed Slaughter house shall be determined with public survey, notification, meetings and all other methods to avoid onward public unrest.

· State Committee on slaughter Houses appointed by Hon'ble Supreme Court be consulted and its prior approval be obtained for proposed Slaughter house.

·The Committee shall inspect and call for public objections, if any before its approval. This Committee also owns the responsibility of stopping illegal slaughter activities in the state.

· Union and State governments, Banks and Financial institutions and specially Food Processing Industry Ministry of Govt. of India shall ensure much before sanction and financing such projects and shall take public in to confidence before proceeding in the matter.

I am certain that if above suggestions be implemented than we can save huge public money,millionsofspeechless animals and public opposition. It will provide new dimension to Agriculture and rural development. NOT PINK BUT GREEN REVOLUTION will come in the Nation. Dr.SKMittal B.Com(Hons)LLM.,PhD

Email: awbikk@gmail.com Mobile: 09980246400

Karnataka State Goseva Ayog: Constitution

An advice to West Bengal to constitute the same a.s.a.p

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."

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 the 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 the 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.

· This fact can be proved with Data of Milk production. It is universal truth that milk production is based on cattle birth. Without Calve birth a Cow will not give milk. State Milk production is increasing leap and bounds. KMF alone is procuring app. 54 Lakh Liter Milk per day. As per National Data in 2010-11 State produced 51,14,000 MT of Milk and average milk yield per Cow or buffalo is app 2.4 Liter per day and per lactation of app 254 days it is app.365 Liter or say a Calf birth is required for each 610 Kgs of milk i.e. app.83.83 Laky Calves in 18 months or say 55.89 Laky 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 purchased 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 fetches 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/-.perPc1,500 Crore

Blood 60,000 KL @ RS.50/- per Liter 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 sturdy Cattle in competition to Slaughter and interstate demand.

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

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

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

· Farmers are committing Subside due to increased cost of Cultivation and fertilizer. Suggestion & 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 and 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 and 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. Regional Transport Officers 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 officers 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 and 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 at least one in each Taluq.

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 of District SPCA, Representatitive of Animal Welfare Organizations. In many districts, I visited interstate 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,

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 sandy days

Transporting vehicles. normally we find these vehicle totally covered and repeatedly carrying cattle .watch their movement and record their make ,color and registration 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 and 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 vehicle, if loaded. Make though inquiry and if you find that there is breach of any of above cited rules arrest them under code 43 of Cr 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 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 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 registration of FIR under, cruelty to animal act .1960 Sec.11 .IPC SEC.429 & WB Animal Slaughter Control Act & WB Cattle Licensing Act 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 state government 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.

In case of slaughterhouses having certificate, arrange 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, lodge complaint under above sections of act of 1950.

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 superintendent of police by telegram and move the petition to hon’ble court under sec.200 C.R.P.C for registration of FIR and judicial action in the matter

Do not treble innocent rarer, 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 · West Bengal Agro Produce Marketing act · West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 · PCA Act , 1960 & Rules · IPC.429, IPC 295 IPC 153-A · West Bengal Municipalities Act	Illegal slaughter of cattle · West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act,1959 · PCA Act , 1960 & Rules · IPC.429, IPC 295 IPC 153-A · West Bengal Municipalities Act · PCA (slaughter house) rules. 2001
Illegal transportation of cattle on Rail Boat & Motor vehicle · WB motor vehicle rules · Indian Motor vehicle act, 1968 Sec.125 · West Bengal Agro Produce Marketing act · West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act,1959 · PCA Act , 1960 & Rules · Indian Custom Act · IPC.429, IPC 295 IPC 153-A · West Bengal Municipalities Act · Transport of cattle rules, 1978 · State Forest act	Illegal Sacrifice/ Bali/ Kurbani of Cattle · West Bengal Agro Produce Marketing act · West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, · West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act,1959 · PCA Act , 1960 & Rules · IPC.429, IPC 295 IPC 153-A · West Bengal Municipalities Act
Illegal transportation of cattle on foot · transportation of cattle on foot Rules (PCA Act) 2002 · West Bengal Agro Produce Marketing act · West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act,1959 · PCA Act , 1960 & Rules · Indian Custom Act · IPC.429, IPC 295 IPC 153-A · West Bengal Municipalities Act · State Forest Acts	Punishments Conviction , arrest, imprisonment, and seizure of cattle, seizure of vehicle , cancellation of permits, cancellation of driving license, fines, closer of premises, loss of respect , Anti Smuggling Laws disturbance of communal harmony , curse of speechless animal& losses
Government agencies & Organizations functioning against above crime WB State Animal Welfare Board, SPCA, Animal Welfare Board of India, Transport Dept (RTO), State Police, BSF, Coastal Guard, Animal Husbandry Dept. Municipalities, Panchayat Committees etc Bengal Arya Prtinidhi Sabha, Sarvodya Parishat, Kolkata Pinjrapol Society ®, Gau Gyan Foundation, PFA

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 you 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, WB Animal Slaughter Control Act,1950, WB Cattle Licensing Act1959, PCA Act Sec 11, , IMV Act Sec.125, WBMotor 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.

Search, 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 of India & Kolkata 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 295A. 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[three 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 meters.

51. (a) Suitable rope and platforms should be used for loading cattle fro vehicles.

(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:………………………………….………………

Speciesofcattle:………………………………………………….…………………

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 color

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 - check

Testicles- 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 notmore 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 possessesavalidlicenseor 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 and 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 Cruelty to Animals Act, 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 Government.

(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 and shall include the existing SPCA functioning in any district.

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

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) TheSociety, 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)EverySocietyshall,throughitsadministratororotherwise,supervisetheoverallfunctioningoftheinfirmaries &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 and efficient functioning of the Society including the procedure for holding the election of the managing committee of the Society, utilisation of financial resources and management of assets of the Society with a view to give effect to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.(F.No.19/1/2000-AWD)

West Bengal Act XXII of 1950

THE WEST BENGAL ANIMAL SLAUGHTER CONTROL ACT, 1950.

Amended West Ben. Act XIX of 1979. 6th April, 1950

WHEREAS it is expedient lo control the slaughter of certain airmails with a view to increase the supply of milk and to avoid the wastage of animal power necessary for improvement of agriculture;

It is hereby enacted as follows :-

(1) This Act may be called the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act,1950.

(2) It extends to the whole of West Bengal.

(3) It shall come into force on such date or dates as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazett, ppoint and different dates may be appointed for different parts of West Bengal.

2. This Act applies to the animals specified in the Schedule.

3. In this Act. unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

(i) "animal" means an animal to which this Act applies;

(ii) "Calcutta " has the same meaning as in clause (I) of section 3 of he Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923;

'(iii) "President" means,-

(a) in relation to a municipality any person presiding over the affairs of any municipal authority, and

(b) in relation to a panchayat samiti, any person presidingover the affairs of any panchayat samiti by whatever name called, and includcs any person nominated by him For he purpose of this Act;

(iv) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act;

'(v) "Veterinary Surgeon" means,-

(a) in areas other than Calcutta, a District Veterinary Surgeon, and

(b) in Calcutta, a Veterinary Surgeon of the Directorate of Veterinary Services, Government of West Bengal, acting with in the local limits of his jurisdiction, and

(vi) "Veterinary Officer" means-

(a) in areas other than Calcutta, a District Veterinary Officer, and

(b) in Calcutta , a Superintendent of Veterinary services (Headquarters) of the West Bengal Civil Veterinary Department acting within the local limits of his jurisdiction.

4. (I) 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 sub section (2) or sub-section (3) t h at ~the animal is fit for slaughter.

(2) '[The President of a municipality or a Panchayat Samiti ,as the case may be, and the Veterinary Surgeon may issue a certificate under their joint signatures that an animal is fit for slaughter if lhey are both of opinion (which shall be recorded) that -

(a) the animal is over fourteen years of age and unfit for work or breeding, or

(b) rhe animal has become permanently incapacitated from work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity or any incurable disease.

(3) Where there is a different opinion between '[he President of a municipality or a Panchayat Samiti , as the case may be, and the Veterinary Surgeon] as to the issue of a Certificate u nder sub-section(2 ),the matter shall be referred to the Veterinary Officer and a certificate shall be issued or refused according as the Veterinary Officer is of opinion that the animal is fit ro be slaughtered or is not so fit .

(4) Where under sub-section (3) a certificate is issued or refused, the order granting or refusing issue of the certificate shall be signed by the Veterinary Officer.

(5) Any person aggrieved by the refusal to issue a certificate under this section may, within fifteen days from the date of communication to him of such refusal, appeal to the State Government against the order of refusal, and thc State Government may pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit .

(6) The State Government may, at any lime for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any action taken under this section, call for and examine the record of any case, and may pass such orders hereon as il thinks fit.

(7) Subject to the provisions of this section, any action taken under this section shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.

5. No animal in respect of which a certificate has been issued under section 4 shall be slaughtered in any place other than a pIace prescribed in this behalf.

6. (1) For the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act , [[the President of a municipality or a Panchayat Samiti, as the case may be, or the Veterinary Surgeon or any person] authorized by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in writing in his behalf shall have power to enter and inspect any premises within the local limits of his jurisdiction where he 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 as is specified in sub-section (1) shall allow '[the President of a municipality or a Panchayat Samiti, the Veterinary Surgeon] or the person authorized, as the case may be, such access to the premises as he may require for the aforesaid purpose, and shall answer any question put to him bythe President of municipality or a Panchayat Samiti the Veterinary Surgeon] or the person authorized, as the case may be, to the best of his knowledge or belief.

7. Whoever contravenes any of the provisions contained in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend ro one thousand rupees, or with both.

8. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1598, all offences under this Act shall be cognizable.

9. Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act or attempts lo commit any such offence shall be punished with the punishment provided in this Act for such offence.

10. '[All Presidents of municipality or a Panchayat Samiti, Veterinary Surgeons], Veterinary Officers and other persons exercising powers under this Act shall be deemed to be public servant with in the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

11. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the rules made there under.

12. The State Government may, by general or special order and subject to such conditions as it may think fi to impose, exempt from the operation of this Act the slaughter of any animal for any religious. medicinal or research purposes.

13. The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette. delegate to any officer of State Government all or any of its powers or functions under sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 4, or section 12.

14. (I) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make 'rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.

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

(a) the form and manner in which applications for certificates under section 4 shall be made;

(b) the fees payable for any certificate which may be issued under section 4 and the form of such certificates;

(d) thc conditions subject to which the slaughter of any animal may be permitted under section 12.

THE SCHEDULE.

(See section 2.)

· Bulls.

· Bullocks.

· Cows.

· Calves.

· Male and female buffaloes.

· Buffalo calves.

· Castrated buffaloes.

WEST BENGAL ACT 1 OF 1959

THE WEST BENGAL CATTLE LICENSING ACT,1959.

An Act to regulate the keeping of cattle in urban areas.

WHEREAS it is expedient in the interest of public health and sanitation to regulate the keeping of cattle in urban areas and for that purpose to provide for the licensing of cattle;

It is hereby enacted in the Tenth Year of the Republic of India by the Legislature of West Bengal as follows:--

(1) This Act may be called the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act, 1959.

(2) It shall come into force in such urban areas and with effect from such dates as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different urban areas:

Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Act to such other area as it may specify in this behalf, and with effect from the date of such notification this Act shall come into force in that area.

In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,

• “Appellate Authority” means an Appellate Authority appointed by notification for any urban area or part thereof in which this Act has come into force;

(aa) ‘’Authorized Officer” means an officer appointed as such by the State Government by notification for any urban area or part thereof in which this Act has come into force;

“Cattle” means any animal of the bovine species and includes buffaloes;

“Family” means a set of parents, children, servants and other relations living together in the same mess;]

“Householder” means a person who occupies any premises as his own dwelling;

(dd) “Khatal” means a palce where cattle are kept or maintained for the purpose of trade or business in cattle including business in milk or otherwise;

· “License” means a license issued under this Act;

· Licensing Authority” means a Licensing Authority appointed by notification for any urban area or part thereof in which this Act has come into force;

· Notification” means a notification published by the State Government in the Official Gazette;

· “ Prescribed” means prescribed by rules made by the State Government under this Act;

· “Urban area” means—The area within Calcutta as defined in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, or any part or parts of such area, or The area within any municipality as defined in the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, or within Chandernagore as defined in the Chandernagore Municipal Act, 1955, or any part or parts of such area;And includes such other area to which the provisions of this Act may be extended under the provision to sub-section (2) of section 1.

· After this Act comes into force in any urban area no person shall keep in or import into such area any cattle except under a valid license.

Explanation --- For the purpose of this section, “import” includes the unloading of cattle from any railway wagon, vehicle or vessel or any other conveyance used in carrying the same and also the taking of cattle through any urban area.

(1) There shall be (three) classes of licenses, namely:----A license granted to a householder in respect of cattle kept in his own premises exclusively for consumption of milk by himself or by any member of his family or by his agent.Explanation ----“Agent” shall have the same meaning as in the Indian Contract Act, 1872;

• A license granted to any person for importing cattle.

(2) Licenses referred to in clauses [(A),(b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be called respectively [class A, class B and class C] licenses.

(1) Any person intending to have a [Class A or a Class B or a Class C] license shall apply to the Licensing Authority in the prescribed manner and the licensing authority may thereafter grant a license under this Act or may, after recording reasons therefore, refuse the application for a license.

(2) Every license shall be valid for such period as may be prescribed and may be renewed on application in the prescribed manner to the Licensing Authority.

(3) Every license shall mention the address of the premises or place where the cattle are to be [kept or imported] and the maximum number and the description of cattle which may be [kept or imported] under the license; such address, number or description may be varied on application made in the prescribed manner to the Licensing Authority.

(4) The nature and type of shed to be provided for keeping cattle under a license shall be such as may be prescribed and no license shall be granted unless the Licensing Authority is satisfied that a shed as prescribed has been provided.

(5) Every license shall be subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and the conditions shall be stated in the license.

Where the Licensing Authority has reason to believe that a person to whom a license has been granted has violated of failed to comply with the conditions for the license or any provisions of this Act or the rules made there under, he may, after affording in the prescribed manner an opportunity to the license to show cause, cancel the license or refuse to renew it.

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of a Licensing Authority, refusing his application for license, or cancelling his license or refusing to renew his license or by an order relating to any change of address or description or variation in number under sub-section (3) of section 5 may, within 30 days of the date of service of such order, prefer an appeal against such order to the Appellate Authority in the prescribed manner.

(2) The Appellate Authority shall deal with the appeal in the prescribed manner and shall pass such order as it deems fit.

No order made by, and no proceedings before, a Licensing Authority or an Appellate Authority shall be called in question in any Civil or Criminal Court.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sections, the State Government may, at any time after the date on which this Act has come into force in any area, declare, by notification, such area or any part thereof as a prohibited area if it thinks fit so to do in the public interest.

(2) No Class B license shall be issued in respect of any premises or place within a prohibited area and any such license already issued or in force in respect of any premises or place in such area shall stand cancelled on the expiry of six months from the date of the issue of the notification under sub-section (1) or of the remaining period of license whichever is earlier.

9A. (1) At any time after the West Bengal Cattle Licensing (Amendment) Act, 1976, comes into force in any urban area, the State Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sections, if it thinks fit so to do in the public interest, declare such area or any part thereof as a restricted area.

2) No class C license may be issued for importing cattle into a restricted area;

Provided that,--

• A Class C license may be granted to the holder of a Class A license;

• No license shall be necessary for importing cattle into a restricted area by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or a Government undertaking;

• The licensing authority may, if it thinks fit so to do in the public interest, grant Class C license to any person for importing cattle into a restricted area with prior approval of the State Government.

The Licensing Authority or any officer of the State Government authorized by him by an order in writing in this behalf or any police officer of and above the rank of a Sub-Inspector shall have power to enter or inspect at any time between sunrise and sunset, any premises or place situate in any area in which this Act has come into force,--

In order to view any cattle, or the arrangements for keeping cattle, in respect of which an application for a license has been made or a license has been issued; or

(ii) in order to ascertain if any cattle [ have been or are being kept or imported] in violation of the conditions of a license or the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under, if he has reason to believe that cattle [have been or are being so kept or so imported].

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force,--

• The Licensing Authority or any officer authorized by him in this behalf or any police-officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector may having reason to believe that the provisions of this Act have been contravened in respect of any cattle or article used for running a khatal, seize such cattle or article or both after compliance, as nearly as may be, with the provisions of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to search and seizure;

• The Licensing Authority or the officer authorized by him or the police-officer seizing the cattle or article or both shall forthwith submit to the officer-in-charge of the police station having jurisdiction over the area a report in writing with respect to such seizure;

• The Licensing Authority or the officer authorized by him or the police-officer seizing the cattle or article under clause(1) shall arrange for the custody and maintenance of such cattle and article and shall forthwith submit a report (stating the contravention of the provisions of this Act and the place wherefrom, the persons from whom and the circumstances under which the cattle and the article have been seized) to the Authorized Officer having jurisdiction;

• On receipt of the report submitted under clause (3), the Authorized Officer may, if he considers it expedient so to do, direct the production of the cattle and the article seized and (whether or not any prosecution has been instituted for contravention of the provisions of this Act), if he is satisfied that there has been contravention of the provisions of this Act in respect of the cattle and the article seized, may order forfeiture of such cattle and article;

• No order forfeiting the cattle and the article seized shall be made by the Authorized Officer under clause (4) unless the owner of the cattle and the article seized or the person from whom they have been seized—Is given a notice in writing in the manner prescribed informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to forfeit the cattle and the article,

• Is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of forfeiture, and

• Is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter;

The Authorized Officer may also, if he considers it expedient so to do for avoiding imminent danger to the cattle or the article seized, pass orders for the custody of such cattle and article in a Government farm or for the sale of such cattle and article by public auction and for deposit of the sale proceeds in a Government treasury.

Explanation—“Government farm” shall mean a farm maintained and managed by the State Government;

The State Government shall appoint an officer, not below the rank of a District Judge as the Appellate Officer to hear appeal against the order of forfeiture made under clause (4) by the Authorized Officer;

• Any person aggrieved by an order of forfeiture made by the Authorized Officer under clause (4) may, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order of forfeiture, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Officer who shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against;

• Where an order appealed against is modified or annulled by the Appellate Officer or where, in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the provisions of this Act in respect of which an order of forfeiture has been made under clause (4), the person concerned is acquitted, the cattle and the article seized shall be returned to the owner or the person from whom seized or if it is not possible to return such cattle and article, such owner or person shall be entitled to the recovery of the sale proceeds of such cattle and article that may be lying in deposit in the Government treasury after deducting therefrom the cost of maintaining the cattle during the period intervening the seizure and the sale by public auction, of the cattle and also the cost incurred for holding the sale by public auction:

Provided that the cost of maintenance of the cattle during the period as aforesaid shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed:

An order made by the Authorized Officer shall, subject to any order of the Appellate Officer be final and shall not be called in question in any court, tribunal or other authority;

In relation to any cattle or article seized under clause (1), the Authorized Officer or as the case may be the Appellate Officer appointed under clause (7) shall have and any court tribunal or other authority shall not have jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such cattle or article.

(1) Any person who—Contravenes the provisions of section 3, orBeing the holder of Class A license sells milk in any urban area or in any part of it, or

• Keeps cattle in any premises or place different from that mentioned in the license or [imports cattle into any urban area without a license, or]

• [keeps or imports] cattle in excess of the maximum number or different in description from that stated in the license or Violates or fails to observe the conditions referred to in sub-section (5) of [section 5, or] Keeps cattle in any area which has been declared to be a prohibited area under sub-section (1) of section 9, without a license, [or] Imports cattle into an area declared to be a restricted area under sub-section (1) of section 9A without a license, *[Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both.]

(2) Every offence under this Act shall be cognizable and non bailable.

* * * *

13. (1) The State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generally of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the matters which may be or are required to be prescribed or made by rules.

14. The State Government may by written order, exempt any institution, authority or person from the operation of this Act on such conditions as it may think fit, in respect of the [keeping or importing] of such number and description of cattle as may be specified, for a scientific, educational or public purpose, if in its opinion, it is necessary so to do in the public interest.

15. No suit or proceeding shall lie against the State Government and no suit, proceeding or prosecution shall lie against any officer of the state Government for anything in good faith done or intended to be dont in pursuance of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder.

16. (1) The provisions of this Act shall have effect not withstanding anything to the contrary in any other Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the provsions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 the Bengal Municipal Act 1932 and the Chandernagore Municipal Act, 1955.

Land mark Judgement on GOMALA given by 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 ofGramSabha/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 only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

References Case Laws

1. AndhraPradesh Highcourt at Hyderabad Crl.Rev P No. 604 of 1991 13.3.1992 on maintenance of custody

2. Gujarat High Court on 16.8.1984 Justice MB Shah on maintenance custody

3. MadhyaPradesh High Court at Indore Misc. Cr. Case No.1538 of 1989 Dt. 30.11.1989 on maintenance of Interim custody

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

5. 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

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

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

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.[Markandey Katju] ................ 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 Utter Pradesh 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 and 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 and 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, September 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 and the Godham should look after and 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

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 appeals by way of special leave to appeal from the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta 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,medicinalorresearchpurpose

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.

onsequently, 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.In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs…………… Sd/- J. Majumdar

Directions of Honorable High Court of Kolkata to West Bengal Governement time and again to act and stop Scarifice of Healthy Cow on Baqar Idd Day

In The High Court at Calcutta
W.P No.16749 (W) of 2011

interim Order dated 13.10.2011
Rajesh Yadav & Others ....... Petitioners
-versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors ...... Respondents
passed by the Hon'ble Justice Harish Tandon and the Hon'ble Justice Soumen Sen JJ.

Be it mentioned herein that a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court comprising the Hon'ble Justice Anil K. Sen and the Hon'ble Justice B.C. Chakrabarti, JJ. (as Their Lordships then were) vide order dated 20.08.1982 passed in C.R.No.709(W) of 1971 and reported in 1982 (II) CHN 273 issued a writ in the nature of Mandamus vide paragraph 11 of the said Judgment ,inter alia, holding that the sacrifice of a cow on Bakr id day is not an obligatory act for a Musalman to exhibit his religious belief and ideas and notwithstanding the sacrifice of cows by a number of Musalmans, such slaughter cannot be considered to be a part of religious requirement. A sacrifice which is not a part of religious requirement cannot be sanctioned on the ground of religious purpose within the meaning of S.12 of the Act. The
exemptions under S.12 of the Act which are being granted for slaughter of cows on the Bakr id day are really dehors the statute not being within the sanction of the said provision. Paragraph 11 of the said Judgment is reproduced as follows:

*"11. In the result, the petitioner must succeed in this writ petition and we make the Rule absolute. We direct that a writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the State of West Bengal, respondent no.1 and its delegates *

*respondent nos.2 to 16 to forebear from giving any exemption under Section 12 of the WBASC Act, 1950 in respect of slaughter of any cow or a scheduled animal on the occasion of Bakar id hereinafter.** There will be no order for costs."*

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld and confirmed the said Judgmentdated 20.08.1982 of the Hon'ble High Court vide its Judgment and order date 16.11.1994 reported in AIR 1995 SC 464 passed in civil Appeals Nos.6790 of 1983 with 6791 to 6794 of 1983 (State of W.B. etc.etc. vs. Ashutosh Lahiri & Ors.) reported in AIR 1995 SC 464 relevant extract from said Judgment are reproduced as follows:

*"9. .... It is not a part of religious requirement for a Muslim that a cow must be necessarily sacrificed for earning religious merit on Bakri Idd."*

*"10. In the result, we confirm the decision of the High Court ...."*

Relying on aabove mentioned Judgments in the instant Writ Petition being W.P. No. 16749 (W) of 2011 Rajesh Yadav & 6 ors vs. The State of West Bengal & 104 others the Hon'ble Justice Harish Tandon and the Hon'ble Justice Soumen Sen JJ. vide Their Lordships order dated 13.10. 2005 has been pleased to pass an interim order operative portion whereof reads as follows:

*"In this writ petition the writ petitioners try to demonstrate that even after the judgment of the Division Bench delivered in case of Kedarnath (supra) as well as the Apex Court in case of Ashutosh (supra) there has been a continuous, uninterrupted slaughtering of the cow on an auspicious day of Bakri Idd.*

*.....................* *Considering the serious apprehension and the facts as it revealed in thesaid petition and the nature of the objection which has been raised in thewrit petition and also in view of law enunciated in the aforesaid two
reports, it is inconceivable that the State after enacting the legislation should shirk its responsibilities of due implementation thereof.*

*Although learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed for passing anyinterim directions but we find that such submission is not tenable for the
following reasons:*

*(1) The State has promulgated the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control
Act, 1950 by which the slaughter of an animal is restricted though there is
no absolute ban on the slaughter of animal;**(2) Section 12 of the said Act by which the power is reserved by the State Government to grant exemption on certain parameters has been declared by the Division Bench to be not under the religious compulsion;*

*(3) The State owes the responsibility to ensure the due implementation of
the legislation enacted by it and as also the orders passed by the Court.*

*In view of above, we expect and hope that the State shall make all
efforts or take all endeavors to see that the provision of the West Bengal
Animal Slaughter Control Act,1950 is not violated or flouted in any manner
whatsoever.*

*The respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition by October 24, 2011 and reply thereto, if any, within October 29, 2011.*Let this matter appear before the regular Bench on the reopening day.**"*

It is noteworthy that Section 7 of the WBASC Act, 1950 makes contravention of any provision of the said Act punishable offence and Section 8 thereof makes the offence cognizable. Section 9 of the said Act, makes abatements of any offence punishable under that Act or attempts to commit any such offence punishable. From sub-Section (2) of Section 4 it is crystal clear that even for slaughtering the said animals in a slaughter house no certificate can be granted unless the said animals are over 14 years of age and unfit for work or breeding or has become permanently incapacitated from work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity or any incurable disease; as according to sacred book of Muslims Hedaya XLIII Hamilton's translation page 591-593 only Healthy Goat,Cow and Camel can be sacrificed certified animals are unfit for being sacrificed on Bakr Idd to acquire religious merit.

As it is statutory duties of the Police Respondents to obey order of theHon'ble Courts and to take all measures to prevent commission ofcognizable offence of cow slaughter in the name of Bakr Idd sacrifice on ensuing Bakr Idd Festival i.e. 7th to 9th November of this year and 10th to12th Zil Hijja of every subsequent year of the Muslim Calender Month. Allowing movement and facilitating sell and purchase of cows, bulls, oxen, calves and other scheduled animals for Bakr Idd sacrifice by the respondent authorities by permitting to hold Cattle Hat and /or not preventing holding of illegal Cattle Hat and /or not seizing such animals kept for sacrificing on Bakr Idd within the area of KMC, HMC and otherMunicipal areas and/ or not taking action either suo moto or on being informed by the people against the commission of Cow slaughter during BakrIdd festival in the garb of Bakr Idd sacrifice shall constitute violations of the statutory provisions as well as will full disobedience and flouting of the orders dated 13th October 2011 of the Hon'ble High Court. *Enclosed:* First Schedule or under and other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant.

This write petition is field in public interest on the issue of sacrificing cow and its progeny as religious ritual on the occasion of Bakri id. The state has enacted the west Bengal animal slaughter control act, 1950 by which the slaughtering of an animal was permitted in restricted manner that is only upon the certificate being issued under sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 4 thereof. Section 12 of said act empowers the state government to grant exemptions of the slaughter of any animal for religious, medicinal or research purpose.

Since decades, the point has cropped up whether the sacrifice of the cow on Bakri id Day is an essential part of the religious requirement of the Musalmans, the division Bench of this court in case of Kedarnath Brahmachari & Ors.vs. The state of west Bengal & Ors. Reported in 1982(II) CHN 273 held:

“Next we proceed to consider the case of the petitioners on its merit we find that in the case of M.H. Qureshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731 the supreme court has gone into the disputed point specifically when it was held that sacrifice of a cow on Bakr id Day is not an obligatory over act for a Musalman to exihibit his religious belief and ideas. The very contention in this regard which has been put forward before us by the learned Advocate General namely, that a substantial part of the Muslim community does take to cow slaughter on such an occasion was also advanced before the Supreme Court on that occasion but the Supreme Court rejected the said contention in holding that notwithstanding such sacrifice by a number of Musalmans, such slaughter cannot be considered to be a part of religious requirement. In the present case, we find that when respondent nos. 2 to 16 granting exemptions under S.12 and permitting cow slaughter on the Bakr id Day, they are doing so for no purpose other than religious purpose. But there, the said respondents are totally over looking that such slaughter cannot be a religious purpose because it is not a part of the religious requirement for the Musalman that a cow or that any of the scheduled animals required to be sacrificed in observing Bakr id. A sacrifice which is not a part of the religious requirement cannot, in our view, be sanctioned on the ground of religious purpose within the meaning of S.12 of the said Act. In that view, we cannot but except the contention of Mr. Chakravarti that exemptions under S. 12 of the said Act which are being granted for slaughter of cows on the Bakar id Day are really de hors the statute not being within the sanction of the said provision.”

The Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal and Ors. Ashutosh Lahiri and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 464 laid down the proposition that the sacrifice of the cows on auspicious day of Bakr id is not imperative but optional religious rituals in following words.

“ ******* In this connection, Das C.J., referred to the historical background regarding cow slaughtering from the times of Mughal Emperors. Mughal Emperor Babar saw the wisdom of prohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious sacrifice and directed his son Humayun to follow this. Similarly, Emperors Akbar, Jehangir and Ahmed Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter. In the light of this historical background it was held that total ban on cows slaughter did not offend Art. 25 (1) of constitution.

In view of this settled legal position it becomes obvious that if there is no fundamental right of Muslim to insist on slaughter of healthy cow on Bakri Id day, it cannot be a valid ground for exemption by the state under S 12 which would in turn enable slaughtering of such cows on Bakri id. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Art. 25(1) of the Constitution deals with essential religious practices while S.12 of the Act may cover even optional religious practices is not acceptable. No such meaning can be assigned to such an exemption cause which seeks to whittle down and dilute the main provision of the Act, namely S.4 which is the very heart of the Act. If the appellants’ contention is accepted then the state case 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 Sec.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 S.12 of the Act for such a purpose. Similarly it has to be held that 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 S.12 for such a religious purpose. We, therefore, entirely concur with the view of the High Court that slaughtering of healthy cows on Bakri Idd is not essential or required for religious purpose of Muslims or in other words it is not a part of religious requirement of a Muslim that a cow must be necessarily scarified for earning religious merit on Bakri Idd.

**** **** **** **** ****

The effort made by learned counsel for the appellants to get any and every religious practice by S.12 also is of no avail for the simple reason that in the context of S.12 the religious practice must be such which requires the invocation of exemption provision under S.12 so as to by-pass the main thrust of S.4. For such an exercise non-essential religious practices cannot be made the basis. Reliance place on the decision of this Court in Hazarat Pir Mohd. Shah v. Commr. Of Income Tax, Gujarat (1967) 63 ITR 490(SC), also is of no assistance as the same refers to S.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 Idd is for a religious purpose, so long as it is now shown to be an essential religious purpose as discussed by us earlier. S. 12 of the Act cannot be pressed in service for buttressing such a non-essential religious purpose.”

Prior to this writ petition, other two writ petitions in public interest were moved being W.P.1378 of 2010 and W.P.no 21591 (W) of 2010, before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench on November 12,2010 disposed of the two writ petitions in public interest with following observation:

“These two petitions have been field in public interest on the issue of sacrificing cow and its progeny as religious ritual on the occasion of Bakri idd. The edition itself contains decision of this Court, which bans slaughter of cow on the occasion of Idd as a religious ritual. Therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by again passing similar judgments and orders as the said judgment, which was upheld by the Supreme Court (State of West Bengal vs. Asutosh Lahiri. Reported in AIR 1995 SC 464), still holds good. The Authorities are, therefore bound to implement the provisions of West Bengal Animal Slaughter (Control) Act,1950 and if any istance of cow slaughter on Bakri-Idd is brought to their notice, they will have to take cognizance and act in accordance with law.

Therefore, we are disposing of these two petitions as filed without there being any cause of action for the same and simply on an apprehension of the petitioners that cow and its progeny would be sacrificed as a religious ritual on the occasion of Bakri-Idd.

It will be open for the petitioners to move this Court in case they come across such incident and if the same is reported to the authorities and the authorities fail to take any action in the matter.

With this observation, the two petitions stand disposed of.”

In this writ petition the writ petitioners try to demonstrate that even after the judgment of the Division Bench delivered in case of Kedarnath (supra) as well as the Apex Court in case of Ashutosh (supra) there has been a continuous, uninterrupted slaughtering of the cow on as auspicious day of Bakri Idd.

The aforesaid fact has been seriously disputed by the learned Government pleader as well as the other respondents. We find that such disputed fact cannot be decided without exchange of affidavits.

Considering the serious apprehension and the facts as it revealed in the said petition and the nature of the objection which has been raised in the writ petition and also in view of law enunciated in the aforesaid two reports, it is inconceivable that the State after enacting the legislation should shirk its responsibilities of due implementation thereof.

Although learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed for passing any interim directions but we find such submission is not tenable for the following reasons:

(1) The State has promulgated the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 by which the slaughter of an animal is restricted though there is no absolute ban on the slaughter of animal:

(2) Section 12 of the said Act by which the power is reserved by the State Government to grant exemption on certain parameters has been declared by the Division Bench to be not under the religious compulsion;

(3) The state owes the responsibility to ensure the due implementation of the legislation enacted by it and as also the orders passed by the Court.”

In view of above, we expect and hope that the State shall make all efforts or take all endeavors to see that the provision of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act. 1950 is not violated or flouted in any manner whatsoever.

The respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition by October 24,2011 and reply thereto if any within October 29,2011.

Let this matter appear before the regular Bench on the reopening day.

(Harish Tandon, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF WEST BENGAL AT KOLKATA

W.P 16749 (w) of 2011

Order Dt.2.11.2011

Mr. P.N.Mishra, Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Ms. Pragya Mishra, Mr. Jewel Biswas

For PETITIONERS

Mr. Kallol Guha Thakurata Mr. Narayan Debnath For Petiotner No.5

Mr. Aminda Mitra Ld. Advocate General

Mr. Asoke Kumar Banerjee Mr. Tapan Mukaerjee Mr. Suman Sengupta

Mr. Abhatosh Majumdar For the State

Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay For Petitioner No.4 Mr. Ram Anand Agarwal Mr. Subarata Mukherji For Respondent nos. 9-93

Mr. Idrish Ali Mr. Syed Sahid Imami Mr. S.M. Hassan Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar

Mr. Debabrata Chaterjee For Respondent No.102

Mr. Ashok Banarjee Mr. Barin Banarjee Me. Swapan Kr. Debnath

For Respondent No 100

Mr. D.P. Mukherjee For H.M.C.

Mr. Sibdas Banarjee, Mr. Suchit Kumar BanerjeeMr. Ane\war Alam Khn

Mr. Abdul Hamid Mr. Ziaul Islam For the Applicants

We have heard the learned consel for the parties at length and also the intervener as well as the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State.

The Court has passed san interim order on 13^th October, 2011 after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned Advocate General and taking note of the earlier decesions of the Court and the Supreme Court . Has directed that the state shall make all efforts or all endeavors to see that the provisions of the west Bengal animal slaughter control act, 1950 are not violated or flouted in any manner whatsoever. We reiterate and affirm the said order.

In the course of argument, our attention was drawn to the minutes of the proceeding of the co-ordination meeting held on 29^th September,2011 at 12-00 p.m in the chamber of the additional district magistrate, D.L & L R O south 24-Parganas and it was specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that cattle which are mentioned in the schedule to the west Bengal animal slaughter control act, 1950 are being brought for sacrifice which is contrary to the provisions of the act as well as the decision of this court cited in the aforesaid order and that the additional district magistrate has resolved in the meeting to facilitate trading of cattle for sacrifice and also movement of cattle within orphangunj market on the occasion Id-uz-zoha festival to be celebrated on 7^th November, 2011. It is submitted in the first place that the additional district magistrate has no such authority and it is in conflict with the decision of this court as well as the supreme court as also the law which governs the subject and, therefore, this court should direct the authority not be facilitate the said arrangement which has been made pursuant to the proceeding of the co-ordination meeting held by the additional district magistrate.

The learned advocate general, the government pleader as well as Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned senior advocate fairly concedes that the additional district magistrate has no such power under the west Bengal animal slaughter control act, 1950 and that no such facilitates can be provided for trading of cattle for sacrifice.

We, therefore, direct the state government through its chief secretary to see that such arrangement and/or markets in the state of west Bengal are not conducted for trading of cattle for sacrifice and which is otherwise not permitted under the west Bengal animal slaughter control the state and local bodies would strictly implement the order passed by this court from time to time for effective and meaningful implementation of the said act.In our opinion, this sufficiently protects the cause agitated by the petitioners before this court in this petition and we need not keep the petition pending as by the interim order passed by this court and by further holding that the officials of the state and local bodies have no power to facilitate holding of markets for trading of cattle for sacrifice and also the movement of cattle for the said purpose on the occasion of Id-uz-Zoha festival to be celebrated on 7^th November,2011. Nothing survives in this petition.

We would like to make it clear that otherwise there is no impediment in the slaughter of animals as permitted under the law and there is no order passed by this court prohibiting such slaughter of animals in the slaughter house in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently the application for intervention and addition of parties is also disposed of. There will be no order as to costs Photostat plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned counsel for the parties on usual undertaking to enable the authorities to act.

(J.N.PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE) (ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KOLKATA

W.P 31190(W) of 2013

Order Dt.3.10.2013

Anand Kumar Arya & anr.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Parmashwar Nath Mishra,

Ms. Pragya Mishra ……… For the petitioners

Mr. Rabindra Nath Pal ……… For the U.O.I

Mr. Bikash Kumar Mukherjee ……… For the State

Let copy of petition be furnished to Mr. Bikash KumarMukherjee, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the State.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by the respondents within eight weeks from date.

List the matter thereafter. Respondents are directed to ensure compliance of the Act and the Rules. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the applicants.

(Shib Sadhan Sadhu J.) (Arun Mishra, Chief Justice

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KOLKATA

W.P. 31522 (W) of 2013

Order Dt.9.10.2013

Mr. Parmeshwar Nath Mishra,

Ms. Pragya Mishra, for the petitioners.

Mr. Bikash Kumar Mukherjee, for the State respondents.

Mr. Rabindra Nath Pal, for the Union of India.

Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee,

Ms. Ira Ghosh, for the Corporation.

The affidavit of service filed in court today is taken on record. Let affidavits in opposition to the writ application be filed by the respondents by five weeks from date.

List the writ petition for hearing along with W.P. 31190 (W) of 2013. In the meantime, the respondent authorities are directed to ensure that the provisions of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950 and the rules framed thereunder are not violated. The respondent authorities are also directed to ensure the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard.

( Tapash Mookherjee, J. ) ( Arun Mishra, Chief Justice )

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 Pinjarapol Society Foot Chamundi Hill Mysore 570 025. PETITIONER

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

1. Shivalinge Gowda, S/o Beere Gowda, 40 years, Honnakumarana halli, Gandasi Hobli, Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District 573162.

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) &

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. J avaregowda 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 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 weeksCopy of the order be given to the learned Counsel today

Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Judge

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

Few words about Author…..Dr. SK Mittal

Animal lover, Rastriy Samaj Ratan Dr.Shri Krishan Mittal is known for his vision and committed work. 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.

Recipient of appreciation from Smt. Indira Gandhi Ji, Dr. Mittal’s leadership was recognized right as student when he was elected as Supreme Councilor 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, Tarpaulin, Fertilizer units in Delhi, Haryana, 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 recipient 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:

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

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

3. Member: Kerala State Animal Welfare board

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

5. Vice President: SPCA Mysore Mysore Administration

6. Founder President: Karnataka Goshala Mahasangh ®

7. Founder President: akhil Karnataka Gauraksha Sangh®

8. Chairman-Legal Sub committee: Mysore Pinjrapole Society

9. Vice President: all India goshala Federation®

10. National Co-convener : BJP Cow Development Cell

11. National comm.Member Bhartiya govans RakshanSamvardhanParishat

Publication of Dr. SK Mittal

1. Welcome Rotarian”

2. Triveni “A monthly 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

10. Legal Safety of cow from Illegal Marketing Transportation & slaughter

Price: RS.100/-

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 और 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 हैकरुणा दया अहिंसा कसाई से रक्षा की कर रहा पुकार 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 काकरतीवादा

पांच नहीं पचास वर्ष भी

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

मंगलवार, 11 नवंबर 2014

West Bengal Animal Safety Law guide

गौ वंश करे पुकार

कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:

फ़ॉलोअर