A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, has held that Section 7 read with Section 18 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, impliedly excludes the jurisdiction of criminal courts under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to grant interim custody of seized agricultural cattle to private individuals, including owners or accused persons. Answering a reference referred by a Single Judge, the Division Bench ruled that during active prosecution, custody of seized agricultural cattle can only be granted to statutory institutions specified under the Act, such as registered Goshalas, Gosadans, or Gorakshan Sansthans.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by Md. Vasim Qurashi, seeking interim custody of 28 agricultural cattle (23 male buffaloes and 5 female buffaloes) seized under FIR No. 241/2020 registered at Police Outpost Manora, District Jashpur. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, on allegations that the cattle were being transported in a truck to a slaughterhouse in Jharkhand.
The petitioner applied for interim custody of the cattle under Section 457 of the CrPC. On December 8, 2020, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, rejected the application in view of Section 7 of the Act of 2004. This rejection was affirmed on January 2, 2021, by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur, in Criminal Revision No. 7/2020, directing that interim custody be handed over to a registered Goshala in accordance with Section 7 and the Single Bench decision of the High Court in Jalil Ansari and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Ors.
When the petitioner challenged the revision order before the High Court, the learned Single Judge expressed a divergent view from Jalil Ansari and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Ors., observing that Section 7 is an enabling procedural provision that does not expressly bar criminal court jurisdiction under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC. Consequently, the Single Judge referred the following question for determination by a larger Bench:
“Whether Section 7 of the Act of 2004 impliedly bars the jurisdiction of criminal Court under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C for grant of interim custody of the cattle seized in the FIR registered for commission of offence(s) under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004?”
During the pendency of the reference, the main criminal trial concluded on April 27, 2024, and the learned Magistrate, Jashpur, acquitted the petitioner and co-accused in Criminal Case No. 821/2021 by giving them the benefit of doubt as independent prosecution witnesses turned hostile. However, the High Court proceeded to answer the reference on the legal question raised.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned Advocate General Mr. Vivek Sharma submitted that Section 7 of the 2004 Act uses the unambiguous command “will be under custody of nearest registered Goshala, Gosadan, Gorakshan sansthan or other registered Sansthan…” until the conclusion of prosecution, leaving no room for judicial discretion. He contended that reading Section 7 alongside the non-obstante clause in Section 18 of the Act overrides general procedural provisions under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC. He added that Sections 4(2) and 5 of the CrPC preserve special local laws. Releasing seized cattle back to accused transporters would perpetuate the very mischief the statute sought to prevent. In support of his contentions, he relied upon Supreme Court judgments in Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala v. State of Maharashtra, State of M.P. v. Uday Singh, State of M.P. v. Kallo Bai, and State of Karnataka v. K.A. Kunchindammed.
Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned Senior Advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae, argued that statutory exclusion of ordinary court jurisdiction cannot be lightly inferred unless expressed clearly or required by necessary implication. Citing Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu and Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, she submitted that courts cannot rewrite legislation or supply a casus omissus. She further contended that an implied bar would lead to prolonged executive retention without effective judicial supervision, violating constitutional protections under Articles 14, 21, and 300A, citing E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu. Pointing to Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, she urged that animal welfare could be secured by granting conditional interim custody to a bona fide owner subject to bonds and security.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench observed that where a special enactment provides a complete statutory mechanism, its provisions prevail over general procedural rules under the CrPC, as recognized by Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Code.
Examining Section 7 of the 2004 Act, the Court held:
“The Legislature has consciously employed the expression ‘will be under custody’. The provision does not employ permissive expressions such as ‘may’, ‘can’, or ‘ordinarily’. Nor does it leave the matter to the discretion of the Court. The legislative command is mandatory, certain and exhaustive. Once seizure takes place for offences under the Act, the statute itself determines the custodian of the seized cattle till the conclusion of prosecution.”
The Court pointed out that a positive statutory command excludes contradictory judicial discretion, and Section 18 gives overriding effect to the 2004 Act over other laws. Addressing the argument regarding harmonious construction with Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, the Bench held:
“Section 451 empowers the Magistrate to deliver interim custody to any person considered entitled thereto. Section 7 of the Act of 2004 simultaneously commands that till conclusion of prosecution custody shall remain only with the nearest registered Goshala or other specified institution. Both commands cannot simultaneously operate if interim custody is directed in favour of the owner or accused. To that extent, the provisions are irreconcilable. The conflict is therefore real and not merely apparent. Such conflict stands resolved by the rule that a special statute prevails over the general statute.”
Rejecting the argument that the absence of explicit words barring court jurisdiction preserves CrPC powers, the Bench observed:
“The absence of an express bar does not necessarily preserve jurisdiction where the statutory scheme itself renders exercise of that jurisdiction impossible. Implied exclusion arises whenever the exercise of general jurisdiction would defeat the statutory command contained in the special enactment.”
The Court concurred with the Single Bench ruling in Jalil Ansari and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Ors. and held that Supreme Court principles in State of Karnataka v. K.A. Kunchindammed, State of M.P. v. Kallo Bai, State of M.P. v. Uday Singh, and Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala v. State of Maharashtra consistently affirm that special custodial mechanisms override general CrPC powers.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench answered the reference by holding:
“Section 7 of the Act of 2004 is neither merely procedural nor merely directory. It constitutes a mandatory statutory command governing interim custody of seized agricultural cattle. Read with Section 18 of the Act of 2004 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Cr.P.C., it impliedly excludes the exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. insofar as grant of interim custody to persons other than the institutions specified under Section 7 of the Act of 2004 is concerned. The contrary view taken in the referring order does not state the correct legal position.”
The Registry was directed to list the matter before the roster Bench for further orders.
Case Details:
Case Title: Md. Vasim Qurashi v. The State Of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: CRMP No. 274 of 2021
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Date: 22/07/2026
