SCR.A/2296/2007 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2296 of 2007 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 7248 of 2008 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 7251 of 2008 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 5846 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ========================================================= KANTILAL MOHANLAL CHANDRANA - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR BS PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1,MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Applicant: 1, Mr. L.R.Poojari,A.P.P for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. MR NM KAPADIA for Respondent(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 24/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and SCR.A/2296/2007 2/7 JUDGMENT Articles 14, 16, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution for various reliefs including for quashing the criminal case registered as C.R.No. II 175/2007 at Karjan Police Station; and that is the only relief which is pressed at this stage in view of earlier order dated 05.08.2008 of this Court (Coram:Jayant Patel,J.) in Special Civil Application No. 3600/2008. 2. According to the complaint, one Vihabhai K. Bharwad, claiming to be an honorary officer of Animal Welfare Board, had received information that certain containers containing meat was going to pass through Gujarat for being delivered at Mumbai. Therefore, a watch was set up and six A.C. Containers containing meat were seized. Although, admittedly, medical certificate in respect of the meat was shown, it was doubted that the meat was mixed with the meat of cows. On that basis, the complaint as aforesaid in respect of offences punishable U/s. 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5,8,9 and 10 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 was made. During pendency of the investigation and proceedings, the stock of meat is stated to have deteriorated and required to be destroyed. Under the order of the Court that was done and only samples of the meat were preserved in the cold storage of a petitioner for the purpose of further analysis and report by different Forensic Science Laboratories. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. B.S.Patel, appearing for SCR.A/2296/2007 3/7 JUDGMENT the petitioner, submitted that none of the offences as alleged in the F.I.R were made out even if it was assumed for the sake of argument that the meat carried in the containers in question was beef. He further submitted that at the intervention of the local activist, the containers were illegally intercepted and seized and the petitioners were already put to huge monetary loss while the investigation could also not be further carried out in view of the wastage of time and deterioration of samples. 4. Learned A.P.P, appearing for the State, submitted that the complainant and the Police Officers concerned had taken cognizance of the offence because the alleged offences were cognizable under both the enactments. The complaint required thorough investigation because, in the guise of buffalo meat, the petitioners were suspected to have been dealing in and transporting through the State of Gujarat cow meat which would be an offence, according to his submission. Learned Counsel, Mr. N.M. Kapadiya, appearing for the original complainant, submitted that the offence U/s. 11(1) (l) has to be presumed in the facts of this case, since meat could not have been produced without killing the animal and whether such animal was killed in a cruel manner or not was the subject-matter of investigation. He further submitted that the offence U/s. 5 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, could also be presumed and the whole matter was required to be properly investigated from the point of view of cruelty to the animal and requirement of preservation of cows and calves. SCR.A/2296/2007 4/7 JUDGMENT 5. It was however seen from bare reading of the complaint itself that it was based only on the suspicion and even after taking all the allegations at their face value and even assuming, for the sake of argument, in favour of the complainant that the meat carried in the containers was mixed with beef. No offence under the aforesaid provisions could be made out which could have justified seizure of the trucks and goods and the respondent appeared to be keen on further investigation only for the purpose of searching out, if any other offences could be alleged against the petitioners. The relevant statutory provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 read as under:- “11(1) If any person- (a) to (k) ... ... (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; (m) to (o) ... ... he shall be punishable, in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment fr SCR.A/2296/2007 5/7 JUDGMENT a term which may extend to three months, or with both. The relevant provisions of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act,1954 read as under: “Sec.5. (1) Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered any animal unless, he has obtained in respect of such animal a certificate in writing from the Competent Authority appointed for the area that the animal is fit for slaughter. ..... .... ..... .... Sec.8 Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Sec.9 Notwithstanding any thing contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, all offences under this Act shall be cognizable. Sec.10 Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act or attempts to commit any such offence shall be punished with the punishment provided in this Act for such offence.” 6. The totality of facts clearly indicate an investigation and persecution based on sheer suspicion, resulting into destruction of private- property meant for export and for earning foreign SCR.A/2296/2007 6/7 JUDGMENT exchange. The whole process is indicated at the instance of an unauthorized person and a busy body claiming to be Animal Welfare Activist. By an order dated 04.07.2008, the original complainant was given an opportunity to show how he was authorized to stop and inspect any consignment of meat passing through the State of Gujarat and he has failed to show any legal and valid authorization by any statutory agency. His affidavit in Special Criminal Application No. 2296 of 2007 clearly indicate his presumption that even possession or transport of meat through the territory of Gujarat authorized every citizen to make a complaint on the basis of presumption of cruelty to animal and the burden of proving that no offence was committed was on the accused persons. It is unfortunate that the police has intervened at his instance in these matters and caused loss to the nation to the tune of crores of rupees. 7. Further prosecution and criminal proceedings in the facts would only cause further harrasement to the parties and waste of judicial time of the Court. Therefore, the petitions are required to be allowed. Accordingly they are allowed with the direction that the main complaint registered as C.R.No. II-175/2007 shall stand quashed. It is clarified that it would be open for the petitioners, if thought fit and so advised, to take suitable proceedings in respect of causation of destruction of valuable property belonging to them. Rule in each petition is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. SCR.A/2296/2007 7/7 JUDGMENT Sd/- (D.H.WAGHELA,J.) Jyoti