HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.4791/2007 DT. 30-9-2010 1. Mohd. Ayub and another …Petitioners V. 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Medchal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District (through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad) and another. ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.4791/2007 ORAL ORDER: This petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 5,6,10,11 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”) in CC No.402/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal. On giving a complaint by the Inspector of Prevention of Food Adulteration & SPO, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, stating that they found a vehicle bearing registration No.AP-15 W 9921 carrying 35 cattles from Karimngar to Bahadurpura Kamela, Hyderabad to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Medchal, the Medhcal police registered the same as in Cr.No.488/2006 under Sections 5,6, 10 and 11 of the Act. After due investigation, police filed a charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal. The charge sheet filed by the police discloses that A-1 (Md. Ayub) along with labourers, namely, Md. Baba and Md. Anwar, went to Karimngar area and purchased the cows, calves and bulls on the night of 24/25-12-2006 and while A-1 transporting the above cattle to slaughter house in the area of Bahadurpura, Hyderabad through the DCM van bearing registration No. AP 15 W 9921 driven by A-2, the vehicle was intercepted by the complainant-L.W.1 and L.W.2. The charge sheet further establishes that A-1 is the cattle owner and A-2 is the driver and they are transporting the cattle to the slaughter house, which is prohibited under law. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that mere transportation of cows do not attract offence under Sec. 5, which can be punishable under section 10 of the Act, unless they have been slaughtered at the slaughter house. This court do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the reason when this court quashed the proceedings initiated against the persons who transported black jaggery, which is an offence punishable under Sec. A.P.Excise Act,1968 and A.P. Prohibition Act,1995 on the ground that seized articles were not indented to be used for manufacturing illicit liquor, the Supreme Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. BAJJOORI KANTHAIAH[1] set aside the order passed by this court holding that “whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with the F. I. R. is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R. P. KAPUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 1960 SC 866) and STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL (1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335). Ultimately, the acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial. These are not the cases where it can be said that the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR in the concerned cases. The principle laid down in the above cited case, BAJJOORI KANTHAIAH, is equally applies to the facts of the present case. Section 5 of the Act prohibits slaughter of cow or calf or she buffalo. Any person who shall slaughter or cause to be slaughter, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter or otherwise intentionally kill or offer or cause to be offered for killing any cow or calf, whether male or female, of a she buffalo is said to be committed an offence under Section 5 of the Act. Whether transporting 25 cows and 8 calves in the vehicle, to be offered for slaughter, by the petitioners is a matter which can be enquired during the course of trial. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, on petitioners/accused appearing before the trial court, the trial court shall dispose of CC No.402/2007 within six months from the date of their appearance. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:-30-9-2010 kmr [1] (2009) 1 SCC (Crl.) 481