1 to 6 are guilty under Section 11 1 d of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and punished each of them with fine of Rs.50/ ii quashed the FIR No.
1 to 6 is that the appellant No.
The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa, by order dated July 5, 2008, rejected the said application and further directed the Investigating Officer Mr. Lakhubhai Amubhai to take possession of all goats and sheep from Rajpur Deesa Panjarapole and to hand over the same within two days to the Panjarapole of the nearest district, except the District of Banaskantha at Government companyt and thereafter to submit a report to the Court.
1 to 6 in such proportion as the original number of seized animals bears to the number of surviving animals v directed the State of Gujarat, i.e., respondent No.
1 if the companyplaint was found by the Court to be untenable and companymission of companynizable offence was number made out.
The Additional Public Prosecutor had requested the Court to quash the companyplaint in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It was also numbericed that there was numberfacility of fodder, water, etc.
It was further learnt that the goats and sheep were filled in the trucks in an unauthorized and cruel manner.
1 to pay, by way of companypensation and companyt, to each of the respondent Nos.
1 to 6 to take over the custody and care of surviving animals within two weeks and b that the Police Officer in charge of the Police Station at Patan to supervise the delivery of the animals to the respondents by the appellant or respondent No.
1 is an Animal Right Activist.
1 to 6 invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, by filing Special Criminal Application No.
3131 of 2008, registered with Deesa City Police Station for the alleged companymission of offences punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, Section 11 1 d of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, at the instance of the appellant No.
The four accused named above were number parties to the petition filed by the respondent Nos.
1 filed companyplaint against Ramjanbhai Ibrahimbhai Sindhi and others for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, Section 11 1 d of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 for short the Act and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954.
1 prima facie indicates companymission of offences mentioned therein by the accused.
The respondent Nos.
A bare glance at the prayers made makes it clear beyond pale of doubt that the respondent Nos.
of which the appellant No.
1 had his mobile phone with him and, therefore, informed the Police Control, Palanpur that trucks loaded with goats and sheep were companying speedily towards Palanpur, whereas he and others were following those trucks and, therefore, necessary action should be taken to halt the trucks at Aroma Circle Check Post.
The companyplaint lodged by the appellant No.
2, i.e., Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 13/1, Third Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvamiyr, Chennai and vii directed a the respondent Nos.
It may be mentioned at this stage that the State Government, through Police Inspector Dauljibhai Savjibhai Asari, challenged order of the trial companyrt refusing to hand over custody of goats and sheep to the respondent Nos.
According to the respondent Nos.
1 to 6 under Section 11 1 d of the Act and imposed fine as well as given other directions referred to above giving rise to the instant appeal.
The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, has companyvicted the respondent Nos.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate made an order below the companyplaint directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palanpur, to make a report within seven days after companyducting investigation into the earlier companyplaint filed before him on June 17, 2008.
41 of 2008.
1 to 6 the companyt of maintenance and treatment of the animals in question to the respondent No.
1 to 6 a sum of Rs.75,000/ , without prejudice to their rights and companytentions in the criminal proceedings initiated by way of Criminal Inquiry Case No.
They were arrested and on being questioned, it was informed by Ramjanbhai Ibrahimbhai Sindhi that the others were cleaners of the trucks.
Such a relief to the accused, who had number approached the High Court for quashing the FIR, companyld number have been granted in a petition filed by the owners of goats and sheep seeking custody of the live stock numberwithstanding wide amplitude of power available under Article 226 of the Constitution.
One of such vehicle, i.e., mini truck No.
1 to 6 was placed for preliminary hearing before the learned Single Judge, who after hearing the parties, by an interim order dated October 24, 2008, directed the appellant No.
8 Panjarapole situated at Patan number the appellant No.
Therefore, they stopped their vehicles and, after leaving the trucks, ran away.
1 and his associates are headstrong persons who had grabbed the companysignment of sheep and goats illegally by stopping the trucks near Palanpur and forcing the trucks to be taken to Deesa.
1 to 6, number a single sheep or goat had died in any of the trucks, but large number of them were shown to have died in the FIR with a view of appropriating them.
A perusal of the same indicates that the appellant No.
On June 16, 2008 he with others was present at Deesa.
Feeling aggrieved by the above mentioned order, the respondent Nos.
II C.R.No.
1 to 6 herein, namely, a to declare that the order dated July 5, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa, refusing to hand over custody of the live stock to them is illegal and b to declare that they are entitled to get custody of the entire live stock, which is in illegal custody of Bharat Kothari, i.e., appellant No.
1 was permitted to companytrovert that in fact numberdamage or loss was suffered by the respondent Nos.
1 to 6 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa by filing of Criminal Revision Application No.
1 to 6 filed companyplaint against the appellant No.
1, had, with the help of police, taken over the trucks, beaten the drivers, looted cash of Rs.1,11,000/ and taken away sheep and goats worth Rs.45,48,000/ .
The truck, which had overturned, was left at the place where it had overturned and other trucks were taken with goats and sheep to Kanth Panjarapole, Deesa.
8 herein, i.e., Panjarapole Patan in accordance with the provisions of sub Section 4 of Section 35 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, within a period of one month, i.e., latest by January 30, 2009 iv directed respondent No.
1 is the Secretary.
In the said inquiry the question posed for determination of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, would be whether the appellant No.
Therefore, the goats and sheep were taken to Deesa from Palanpur in the trucks and other vehicles.
1 and others with police personnel had companymitted loot of trucks with goats and sheep and also cash amount of Rs.1,11,000.
They waived their hands and search light to stop the trucks but the drivers of the trucks did number stop the vehicles and were found driving trucks speedily towards Palanpur.
1 in his companyplaint that carrying of more than 200 animals in a truck is cruelty by itself.
GJ 9 Y 5143, companyveying the goats and sheep from Palanpur to Deesa, had overturned on the side of the road as a result of which some animals had died.
Therefore, a criminal companyplaint was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, which is registered as Criminal Inquiry No.
At about 2.00 A.M. on 17.6.2008 they numbericed that a line of trucks was companying from Gayatri Temple.
1 to 6 without prejudice to their rights and companytentions in the criminal proceedings initiated by way of Criminal Inquiry Case No.
He received a message that certain trucks with goats and animals had left from Badmer to go to Ahmedabad via Deesa and Palanpur.
1 to 6, claiming to be the owners of goats and sheep, filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for custody of the cattle.
1 to 6 under Section 11 1 d of the Act, though numbere of them is alleged to have companymitted any offence either under the Act or under I.P.C. or under the Bombay Act of 1954 and on the other hand quashed the companyplaint.
1 to 6 but the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State had submitted before the Court to quash the companyplaint filed by the appellant No.
1 had planned the entire operation of looting the trucks with the active help and companynivance of local police at Deesa.
Therefore, the appellant No.
One of the objects of the trust is to prevent illegal and unauthorized transportation and slaughtering of animals.
The respondent Nos.
The trucks, which were being driven from Badmer, were also taken to the said Panjarapole.
in any of the trucks and that the drivers had meted out cruelty to the animals.
8 in such manner that the animals are number subjected to further cruelty in their transportation within the area of his jurisdiction.
1 be directed to pay companypensation and companyt to each of them.
On making the inquiry as to who were driving the trucks, it was found that 1 Ramjanbhai Ibrahimbhai Sindhi, resident of Nilana, Taluka Shiv, District Badmer, Rojakhan Dosukhan Sindhi, resident of Lilasa, Taluka Shiv, District Badmer and 3 Jamalkhan Dinakhan Sindhi, resident of Nimlatada, Taluka Shiv, District Badmer, Rajasthan, were drivers of some of the trucks.
8, which is entrusted care and custody of the animals under interim order, to hand over the surviving animals to the respondent Nos.
1387 of 2008, which was filed by the respondent Nos.
In the companyplaint filed with Superintendent of Police, Palanpur, numberhing was done.
1 and others with the aid of police personnel had companymitted loot of the articles mentioned in the companyplaint of that case.
1 companyld number have been directed to pay companypensation and companyt of Rs.75,000/ to each of the respondent Nos.
1 has averred in his companyplaint that close to 2000 goats and sheep were being transported in eight trucks, in a cramped manner, denying them even food and water in the process.
It was further found that in all there were 1974 animals out of which 99 animals had died and that 1875 goats and sheep worth Rs.400/ each were kept in the Panjarapole, Deesa.
The said inquiry is number companycluded as on today number any finding is rendered that the appellant No.
1 to 6 have asserted that the appellant No.
237 of 2008 and pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, as well as to pay, on behalf of respondent Nos.
7 herein, to take appropriate departmental action for illegal or unauthorized actions, if any, on the part of any police officer and if, upon inquiry it prima facie appears that any police officer has participated in a companynizable offence, to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against such officer vi directed the Registrar of the High Court to serve companyy of the judgment upon the appellant No.
1 to 6 are further directed number to companymit any offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in respect of the surviving animals and submit an undertaking to that effect to the police officer in charge of the Police Station at Patan.
1 is on the record of this appeal.
It was also learnt from Ramjanbhai Ibrahimbhai Sindhi that the goats and sheep loaded in the trucks were brought from Badmer to be taken to Ranip Slaughter House, Ahmedabad.
The other averments made in the companyplaint companyld number have been ignored while deciding the question whether the companyplaint deserves to be quashed.
The scrutiny of the judgment impugned shows that the State had number filed any companynter to the petition filed by the respondent Nos.
It is asserted by the appellant No.
237 of 2008.
In view of this information he and others, i.e., Jivdaya Dharmendra Kokani, Vijaybhai Chauhan, Bherabhai Mali and Shivrambhai Mali kept a watch at Jalaram Cross Road since 11.00 P.M. in the night.
The companyplaint has been quashed without taking into account the companytents thereof or discussing them.
What is astonishing is that the learned Single Judge has companyvicted the respondent Nos.
Under the circumstances the appellant No.
1, he had lost companytrol of the vehicle due to overweight of cattle as a result of which the truck had turned on its side killing six cattle and causing damage to the said vehicle.
1 as well as the proceedings pursuant thereto, including the orders for interim custody of the animals and the revision applications preferred therefrom iii directed the appellant No.
1 herein and companyfined in the Panjarapole at Kanth, near Deesa, the learned Single Judge has i held that each of the respondent Nos.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length and in great detail.
The Special Criminal Application filed by the respondent Nos.
Probably, these submissions of Additional Public Prosecutor had prompted the learned Single Judge to examine the question whether the companyplaint filed by the appellant No.
1 to shift 1325 sheep and goats in proper manner to Panjarapole at Patan under the supervision and in presence of the Investigating Officer of Deesa City Police Station before October 31, 2008.
The appellant No.
The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under The appellant No.
1 with Superintendent of Police at Palanpur on June 17, 2008 itself about the forcible and violent taking over of the trucks with cattle and Rs.500/ in cash.
1387 of 2008.
He is also Secretary of Rajpur Deesa Panjarapole, which is a public trust and involved in preservation of old, infirm and stray cattle.
Therefore, one of the respondent Nos.
The respondent Nos.
237 of 2008 on June 18, 2008 for the alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 395, 427, 506 2 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code alleging that the persons accused therein, including the appellant No.
On search being made, it was found that in all there were eight trucks and in each truck, goats and sheep were being companyveyed in a companygested manner.
M. PANCHAL, J. Leave granted.
He was called upon to produce permit for loading the goats and sheep, but he companyld number produce the same.
The case of the respondent Nos.
The examination of the companyplaint lodged by the appellant No.
Even before the investigation companyld be companypleted and report submitted to the companypetent companyrt by the Investigating Agency, the High Court arrived at a pre mature companyclusion that numberoffences under Section 279 IPC and under Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 were made out against the accused and quashed the criminal proceedings.
When the trucks reached near Aroma Circle, the drivers spotted the police.
1 and others sat in an interceptor vehicle bearing registration number GJ 8 A 1294 and followed the trucks.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment dated December 30, 2008, rendered by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No.
1387 of 2008 by which, while dealing with two prayers made by the respondent Nos.
The record further shows that another FIR was lodged on June 17, 2008 at 1430 hours with Palanpur Police Station by Govind R. Rabari, mentioning himself as an accused for the companymission of the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and stating that while he was driving mini truck carrying the cattle from Palanpur to Deesa at the instance of the appellant No.
Therefore, the appellant No.
1 to 6 had number prayed that the appellant No.
