In a recent judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice G.A. Sanap, delivered a significant ruling in Criminal Writ Petition No. 400 of 2024 involving allegations of cruelty in transporting buffaloes. The case, titled Abdul Samad Abdul Karim vs. State of Maharashtra and Goseva Savardhan Trust, has spotlighted issues around animal rights, fake documentation, and the responsibilities of the police in conducting investigations.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on September 24, 2023, when 17 buffaloes were seized by the Ralegaon Police in Yavatmal district. The animals were reportedly crammed into a vehicle bearing registration number MH-20 EL-2225 under inhumane conditions, prompting the police to file an FIR (No. 526/2023) for violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and other related statutes.
Abdul Samad Abdul Karim, the petitioner and purported owner of the buffaloes, claimed that he had purchased the animals from farmers for personal use, not for sale or slaughter. However, the police argued that the transportation was conducted in blatant violation of legal norms, and the seized animals were handed over to Goseva Savardhan Trust for care. When Abdul Samad sought custody of the buffaloes, his request was rejected by both the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ralegaon, and the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, leading to the current writ petition before the High Court.
Legal Issues and Observations of the Court
The primary legal issues before the court were:
1. Cruelty in Transportation: Whether the transportation of the buffaloes was conducted in accordance with the rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and associated regulations.
2. Right to Custody: Whether the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the buffaloes, was entitled to interim custody during the pendency of the trial.
3. Fabrication of Ownership Documents: Allegations were made by the police that the documents presented by Abdul Samad to establish ownership were fabricated, as the supposed sellers denied selling the buffaloes.
Justice Sanap emphasized the need for compliance with the Rules of 1978 and Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which stipulate that no more than six cattle should be transported in one goods vehicle and that adequate provisions for food, water, and medical aid must be ensured during transit. The judge noted that the seized vehicle did not comply with these requirements, as the animals were tied in a manner that inflicted severe pain and distress.
Key Quotes from the Judgment
The judgment contains several critical observations:
1. On the role of the police in verifying ownership:
“The police shall not conduct half-hearted investigations. Such issues must be taken to a logical end by the police.”
2. On the responsibility of transporters and owners:
“The petitioner, being the owner of the buffaloes on the basis of the so-called receipts, was required to strictly comply with the provisions of the law and the rules. There was blatant violation of the rules.”
3. On the possible syndicate behind fake documentation:
“It appears to be a modus operandi of the petitioner to get false receipts prepared through the Market Committee. The police are required to conduct a thorough investigation to unearth the truth.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, refusing to grant interim custody of the buffaloes to Abdul Samad. The court found that the petitioner had failed to establish lawful ownership of the animals through credible documents and emphasized that the seized animals cannot be disposed of during the criminal trial.
The court ordered the police to conduct further investigation, focusing on the possible involvement of a wider syndicate, including members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), in facilitating the creation of fake purchase receipts. Justice Sanap reiterated that the final custody of the buffaloes would depend on the outcome of the criminal proceedings, and the welfare of the animals should remain a priority.
The petitioner, Abdul Samad, was represented by Advocate A.R. Ingole, while Assistant Public Prosecutor S.V. Kolhe appeared for the State of Maharashtra. Advocate Raju Gupta represented Goseva Savardhan Trust.
