IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.964 OF 2008 D.G.Banswal .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.P.D.Desai for the petitioner. Smt.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 22nd August 2008. : 22nd August 2008. : 22nd August 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. A F.I.R was lodged against the petitioner alleging offences under section 428, 429 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and clauses (a), (d), (i), (k) and (l) of sub section 1 of section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1960). 2. The first informant is one Rita Wajirani who is an animal rights activist. In her complaint before the police she stated that she is a trustee of a Trust by the name "People for Animals". According to her case she is doing the work of supplying food to the animals. According to her case she visits Sindhi Colony, Chembur, Mumbai every day in the morning and evening for : 2 : 2 : 2 : providing food to stray dogs in the said colony. According to her she also regularly vists Tata Colony and the Bharat Petroleum residential colony at Chembur, Mumbai for the same purpose. 3. She stated that on 27th July 2000 at about 10.30 p.m as usual she visited the Colony of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd for providing food to the stray dogs. At that time she found that none of the dogs in the colony could be located. After waiting for some time she left the eatables outside the gate and came back to her residence. On the next day around 11.00 p.m, she visited the same Bharat Petroleum Corporation colony for the purpose of providing food to the stray dogs. She waited for half an hour but the dogs did not make appearance. Therefore, she enquired with the two security guards at the gate of the colony. The security guards informed her that on 27th July 2000 the dogs in the colony were put in a tempo and were taken out. The said security guards allowed the first informant to call one Mr.Pathak who was a security officer. The said security officer informed the first informant that as per order passed by the petitioner and in the presence of the petitioner, a contractor by the name Sham took all the dogs away by putting them in a tempo. At 2.15 a.m she reported the incident to the R.C.F police station. On 29th July 2000 she again visited the same : 3 : 3 : 3 : police station and F.I.R was registered. She further stated that the petitioner and the said contractor Sham caught about 50 stray dogs in the colony by subjecting them to harassment and unnecessary pain. It is alleged that by putting so may dogs in a tempo, the dogs were subjected to torture. The further allegation is that the dogs were kept hungry and by a tempo they were taken away to an undisclosed destination. It was alleged that in the process injury has been caused to the stray dogs. The allegation is that the said dogs were abandoned in such a manner that they will be subjected to hunger. A supplementary statement of the first informant was recorded on 06th October 2000 in which she stated that at the instance of the petitioner the said contractor had left 14 dogs near BEST bus depot at Dharavi and the said dogs were traced. In the supplementary statement she stated that despite of best efforts made by her, other 36 dogs could not be traced. An apprehension was expressed that the animals must have been killed in unnecessarily cruel manner. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that no offence has been made out either under section 428 or section 429 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. He submitted that the allegations of commission of offences under the said Act of 1960 are very vague and therefore, no offence : 4 : 4 : 4 : under provisions of the said Act has been made out. The submission is that there is no material available on record except for the statements of the first informant. He submitted that the police without making any inquiry have registered an offence against the petitioner. He submitted that this was a fit case to exercise power under section 482 of the said Code. 5. The learned A.P.P relied upon affidavit of one Punjaji Eknath Garud, a police sub-inspector attached to RCF police station at Chembur, Mumbai and submitted to the orders of the Court. 6. I have considered the submissions. The first informant is an animal activist. According to her case, on instructions of the petitioner and in his presence, a contractor appointed by him by the name Sham picked up about 50 stray dogs in the colony and the dogs were dumped in a tempo and the said dogs were taken away. Fourteen dogs could be traced at Dharavi. The other dogs were not traced out. There are statements of other animal activist recorded by the police. There are statements recorded of the security guards posted in the said colony. The said statements record that the stray dogs were taken by the contractor in a tempo and were taken out of the colony. Even a statement of a security officer of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Colony has : 5 : 5 : 5 : been recorded in which he has stated that as per the instructions of the petitioner one Sham caught hold of stray dogs in the colony and has taken away the stray dogs. He stated that he was not aware as to what happened to the said dogs taken by the said man. The statement of security guard by name Vedprakash shows that the said Sham entered the colony along with a tempo. He stated that when the tempo came back, when he made inquiries with the said Sham, he revealed that he had caught hold of 30 to 35 dogs which were kept in the tempo. 7. Section 3 of the said Act of 1960 provides that it is the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering upon said animal. The petitioner is the Estate Manager of the colony of the Bharat Petroleum and the material on record shows that as incharge of the said colony he directed the said contractor Sham to pick up the dogs in the colony and take away the said dogs from the colony. The dogs were caught and put in a tempo in presence of the petitioner and as per his instructions. Section 11 of the said Act of 1960 deals with treating the animals cruelly. Clauses (d), (i), (k) and (l) read thus: : 6 : 6 : 6 : "11. Treating animals cruelly- (1) .... (a) .... (b) .... (c) .... (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) .... (f) .... (g) .... (h) .... (i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation : 7 : 7 : 7 : or thirst; or (j) .... (k) offers for sale or, without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason 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) .... (n) .... (o) .... " 8. The allegation made in the statements recorded by the police show that about 45 to 50 dogs were dumped into a tempo under the instructions of and in presence of the petitioner by the said contractor Sham. The dogs were carried to undisclosed destination by the said : 8 : 8 : 8 : tempo. The allegation is that the dogs were abandoned in circumstances which will render it likely that they will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst. Therefore, in so far as clauses (a), (d) and (i) of section 11 are concerned, there is material available on record to proceed against the petitioner. So far as clause (k) is concerned, there is material on record to proceed against the petitioner as the dogs were subjected to overcrowding. In so far as clause (l) is concerned, there is no allegation made by any of the witnesses as regards mutilating or killing of stray dogs by using the method of administering injection in heart. However, clause (l) also covers a contingency where the dogs are killed in unnecessarily cruel manner. Till today about 36 dogs have not been traced and therefore the case of the first informant is that the dogs must have been killed in unnecessarily cruel manner. 9. In so far as sections 428 and 429 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is absolutely no material to proceed as against the petitioner. Therefore, the petition must succeed in part and I pass the following order: . The petition succeeds in so far as the offences alleged under sections 428 and 429 of : 9 : 9 : 9 : the Indian Penal Code are concerned. However, the prosecution will proceed for offences alleged under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. (A.S. Oka, J)