Cattle seized in animal cruelty case cannot be handed over to accused owner: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court recently observed that the interim custody of cattle seized on allegations that they were subjected to cruelty cannot be handed over the owner accused of being responsible for such violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) [Dhyan Foundation vs State of Odisha & others]..Justice SS Mishra reasoned that the chance of further cruelty by “the perpetrator of law” cannot be ruled out in such cases. Thus interim custody of the seized cattle should be entrusted to a neutral body which can protect and keep the cattle safe while the PCA Act case is pending, the High Court said.After final disposal of the case, the trial court can pass appropriate orders regarding disposal or custody or confiscation of the cattle or vehicle in accordance with law, the Court added.“If in a given case the facts are glaring from the record that the cattle were being transported in violation of the provisions of Rule 56(c) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 and health certificate was not issued by Veterinary Department in terms of the provision of Rule 47(a) of the Transport of Animals Rules, there is no question of giving even interim custody to such owner even from the very reading of Section 29 of the PCA Act,” the Court's April 16 judgment stated. .The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Dhyan Foundation against a district and sessions judge’s order to release seized cattle to their owner. The sessions court had concluded that there was no legal bar to prevent the accused owner from taking custody of the animals during the pendency of the PCA Act case.The cattle had been seized last year after it was allegedly found that they were being transported in a goods carrier vehicle without a necessary health certificate and without proper care or arrangement of water, food or medical aid. The police had initially handed over the cattle to Dhyan Foundation. However, the owner then moved the magistrate for the release of the animals in his favour. The magistrate rejected the petition, compelling the owner to move the sessions court. The sessions court allowed his plea..Dhyan Foundation challenged this order. Representing the foundation, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra argued that the documents concerning the ownership of the cattle were forged. It was also argued that the well-being of the animals and their protection must be taken into account while ordering release of the animals. The State supported the submissions made by the foundation. While ruling in favour of the foundation, the Court said that the conduct of the accused and the manner in which the cattle were dealt with could only lead to the inference that the animals were subjected to cruel treatment.“The object of the PCA Act as discussed above is definitely offended by the conduct of the opposite party no.3 (accused). In the light of the aforementioned facts germinating from the record, the Revisional Court ought to have applied the principle while allowing interim custody of cattle to the opposite party No.3,” it said..The High Court also noted that the revisional court had failed to consider that fake documents had been submitted to establish the ownership of cattle. It added that the court below also had not taken into consideration the object of the PCA Act and its Rules.“While considering the case of the present petitioner in the spirit of the object of the Act and by evaluating the facts scenario of the present case, this Court is of the prima facie view that in the interest and for the wellbeing of the cattle, the petitioner may have a superior right over the opposite party no.3 for getting interim zimma of the cattle,” the Court said..It, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge and remanded the matter to it for a fresh decision in light of the High Court's observations and the subsequent discovery that the documents submitted to establish the ownership of cattle were fake.Senior Advocate Luthra appeared along with advocates TK Sahu, A Anand, P Singhal and RR Gupta on behalf of Dhyan Foundation. Additional Standing Counsel PK Maharaj represented the State.Advocates Jayanta Kumar Majhi, Gopal Krushna Acharya and Madan Mohan Mishra represented the accused..[Read Judgment]