http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: MANAGER, PINJRAPORE DEUDAR & ANR.]

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHAKRAM MORAJI NAT & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/08/1998

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 1998 Present:              Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.K.Mukherjee              Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S.Mohammed Quadri Dr.A.M.Singhvi, Sr.  Adv., S.C.Patel,  G.R.Popat, Advs. with him for the appellants. A.K.Ganguli,  Sr.  Adv.,  J.L.Chauhan,  Shakil  Ahmed  Syed, Ms.H.Wahi, Ms.Neithono  Rhetso, Ms.Anu  Sawheny, Advs.  with him for the respondents.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: QUADRI, J.      Leave is granted.      These  three   appeals  are   filed  by   the  Manager, Pinjrapole against  the common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated  April 8, 1997. The short question that arises for consideration  in these appeals is: whether the order of the High  Court declining  to grant  interim custody  of the animals to  the appellants  is contrary to Section 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.      The facts  giving rise  to this question may be noticed here. While  the sheep and goats [hereinafter referred to as "animals"] were being transported, the Gujarat police seized them  for   the  alleged  violation  of  provisions  of  the Prevention of  Cruelty to  Animals Act.  1960 for short. The Act), Bombay  Police Act  and Rules  65 to 75 of the Gujarat Diseases of  Animals control  Rules. 1963.  It is  a  common ground that  the offences  alleged are  non-cognizable.  The learned Judicial  Magistrate, 1st  Class, Dhanera,  on their production before  him, directed  that the  custody  of  the animals be  handed over to Pinjrapole. Dissatisfied with the order to the learned Magistrate, the owners of animals filed Criminal Revision  Application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,  Banaskantha at  Palnapur, who  allowed  the Revision and  directed that  the custody of animals be given to the  owners pending  trial of  the cased.  The Pinjrapole carried the  matter in  Revision before  the High  Court  of Gujarat. That  Revision and two other cases were disposed of by the  High Court  by common  order dated  April  8,  1997, declining to  interfere in  the order  passed by the learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Additional Sessions Judge.      The correctness  of that  common order  is assailed  in these appeals.      Dr.A.M.Singhvi, the  learned senior  counsel  appearing for the  appellants, has  argued that Section 35 of the Act, enjoins that in the event the Magistrate not sending animals to an  infirmary, he  has to send them to Pinjrapole pending the trial  of offences against the owner under the Act; that the order  of  the  High  Court  confirming  restoration  of custody of  the animals  to the  owners in preference to the appellant-Pinjrapole, which  is a charitable institution and is only  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  animals,  is violative of Section 35, illegal and unsustainable.      Mr. A.K.Ganguli,  the learned  senior counsel appearing for the  respondents, has  submitted that the High Court has properly constructed  section 35 of the Act and after taking note of  various instances of destruction of the animals and the standard  of care  taken in  the Pinjrapoles,  and  that having regard  to the  welfare of  animals as  well  as  the interest of  the owners, the High Court has rightly declined to interfere  with the  order of the learned Sessions Judge, so these appeals are liable to be dismissed.      For judging the merits of these contentions, it will be apt to  notice the  scheme of  the Act  in the  light of the relevant provisions thereof. section 4 of the act postulates establishment  of   Animal  welfare  Board  by  the  Central Government for the promotion of animal welfare generally and for the  purpose of  protecting animals from being subjected to unnecessary  pain or  suffering, in particular. The Board is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with  power to acquire and dispose of property, subject to  the  provisions  of  the  Act.  Section  9  of  the  Act enumerates  functions  of  the  Board;  clause  (g)  thereof contains the  objective which  reads: to  encourage, by  the grant of financial assistance or otherwise, the formation or establishment of pinjrapoles, rescue homes, animal shelters, sanctuaries and  the like where animals and birds may find a shelter when  they have  become old and useless or when they need protection.  section 11  enlists offences  against  the animals and  prescribes penalty therefor specific offence to practising ’phooka and doom day. Under Section 29 magistrate has power to deprive a person of the ownership or custody of an animal  on his  conviction  of  offences  under  the  Act subject to  certain conditions.  sections 32 to 34 deal with the power  of search  and seizure, issuing of search warrant and general  power of  seizure for examination. The owner is required to  accompany the  seized animals  to the  place of inspection.      Now, it  may be  useful to  quote Section 35 of the Act under which  the appellant-pinjrapole claims interim custody of the animals:      "35. Treatment  and care of animals      -      (1) The  State Government  may,  by      general or  special order,  appoint      infirmaries for  the treatment  and      care of animals in respect of which      offences against this act have been      committed, and  may  authorise  the      detention  therein  of  any  animal      pending  its  production  before  a      magistrate.      (2). The  magistrate before  whom a      prosecution for  an offence against      this act  has been  instituted  may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    direct that  the animals  concerned      shall be  treated and  cared for in      an infirmary,  until it  is fit  to      perform  its   usual  work   or  is      otherwise  fit  for  discharge,  or      that  it   shall  be   sent  to   a      pinjrapole, or  if  the  veterinary      officer in  charge of  the area  in      which the  animal is  found or such      other veterinary  officer as may be      authorised in  this behalf by rules      made under  this Act certifies that      it  is   incurable  or   cannot  be      removed without  cruelty,  that  it      shall be destroyed.      (3) An  animal sent  for  care  and      treatment  to  an  infirmary  shall      not, unless  the magistrate directs      that  it   shall  be   sent  to   a      pinjrapole  or  that  it  shall  be      destroyed, be  released  from  such      place except  upon a certificate of      its fitness,  for discharge  issued      by the veterinary officer in charge      of the  area in which the infirmary      is   situated    or   such    other      veterinary  officer   as   may   be      authorised in  this behalf by rules      made under this Act.      (4) The  cost of  transporting  the      animal   to    an   infirmary    or      pinjrapole, and  of its maintenance      and  treatment   in  an  infirmary,      shall be  payable by  the owner  of      the animal  in  accordance  with  a      scale of  rates to be prescribed by      the  district  magistrate,  or,  in      presidency-towns,      by       the      commissioner of police.      Provided that  when the  magistrate      so orders on account of the poverty      of the  owner  of  the  animal,  no      charge shall  be  payable  for  the      treatment of the animal.      (5). Any amount payable by an owner      of an  animal under sub-section (4)      may be recovered in the same manner      as an arrear of land revenue.      (6).  If   the  owner   refuses  or      neglects  to   remove  the   animal      within such  time as  a  magistrate      may  specify,  the  magistrate  may      direct that  the animal be sold and      that the  proceeds of  the sale  be      applied  to  the  payment  of  such      cost.      (7). The  surplus, if  any, of  the      proceeds of  such  sale  shall,  on      application  made   by  the   owner      within two  months from the date of      the sale, be paid to him."      From a plain reading of the provisions, above noted, it its evident  that sub-section  (1) of Section 35 enables the State Government  to appoint  infirmaries for  the treatment and care  of animals in respect of which any of the offences

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

under the  Act has  been  committed  and  to  authorise  the detention of  such animals pending their production before a magistrate. Under  sub-section (2), the Magistrate may order that: (a)  the animal  shall be  treated and cared for in an infirmary till such time it is fit to perform its usual work or is  otherwise fit  for discharge; (b) the animal shall be sent to  a Pinjrapole; or (c) the animals shall be destroyed if it is certified by a veterinary officer, authorised under the Rules,  to be incurable or if it is found that it cannot be removed  without cruelty.  Mandate of  sub-section (3) is that no animal shall be released from an infirmary unless it is directed  to be  sent to  Pinjrapole or  be destroyed  or certified by  concerned veterinary  officer to  be  fit  for discharge. Sub-section  (4) imposes liability for payment of the cost  of transporting  the animal  to  an  infirmary  or Pinjrapole  and   its  maintenance   and  treatment   in  an infirmary, in  accordance with  the prescribed rates, which, however,  can   be  dispensed  with  if  the  Magistrate  is satisfied that on account of the poverty of the owner, he is unable to  bear the  same, otherwise  it may be recovered as arrears of  land revenue,  as envisaged  in sub-section (5). Sub-section (6)  says that  if the owner refuses or neglects to remove  the animal  within  the  time  specified  by  the Magistrate then  he can  order the  sale of  the animal  and appropriation of  the sale proceeds for the cost thereof and in the  event of  there being surplus proceeds of such sale, payment of  the same  to the owner on his application within two moths  of the  sale. This  is postulated  by sub-section (7).      In view  of the  above  discussion  and  provisions  of Section 451  Cr.P.C., it appears to us that unless the owner of the  animal in respect of which he is facing prosecution, is deprived  of the  custody (which  can be done only on his conviction under the Act for the second time), no bar can be inferred against him to claim interim custody of the animal.      Now adverting  to the  contention  that  under  Section 35(2), in  the  event  of  the  animal  not  being  sent  to infirmary, the  Magistrate is  bound  to  give  the  interim custody to Pinjrapole, we find it difficult to accede to it. We have  noted above the options available to the Magistrate under  Section   35(2).  That   sub-section  vests   in  the Magistrate the  discretion to  give interim  custody of  the animal to  Pinjrapole.  The  material  part  of  sub-section (shorn of  other details)  will  read,  the  Magistrate  may direct  that  the  animal  concerned  shall  be  sent  to  a Pinjrapole. Sub-section (2) does not say that the Magistrate shall send  the animals  to Pinjrapole.  It is  thus evident that the expression "shall be sent" is part of the direction he decides to give interim custody to Pinjrapole. It follows that under  Section 35(2)  of the  Act, the  Magistrate  has discretion to  hand over  interim custody  of the  animal to Pinjrapole but  he is not count to hand over  custody of the animal to  Pinjrapole in  the event  of not sending it to an infirmary. In a case where the owner is claiming the custody of the  animal, Pinjrapole  has no  preferential  right.  In deciding whether  the interim custody of the animal be given to  the   owner  who   is  facing  prosecution,  or  to  the Pinjrapole, the  following factors will be relevant: (1) the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the owner; (2) whether  it is  the first offence alleged or he has been found guilty  of offences  under the Act earlier; (3) if the owner is  facing the  first prosecution  under the  Act, the animal is  not liable to be seized, so the owner will have a better claim  for the  custody  of  the  animal  during  the prosecution; (4) the condition in which the animal was found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

at the  time of  inspection and seizure; (5) the possibility of the animal being again subjected to cruelty. There cannot be any  doubt that  establishment of  Pinjrapole is with the laudable object  of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals  and providing  protection to them and birds. But it should  also be  seen,  (a)  whether  the  Pinjrapole  is functioning as  an independent  organization  or  under  the scheme of  the Board and is answerable to the Board; and (b) whether the Pinjrapole has good record of taking care of the animals given  under its  custody. A perusal of the order of the High  Court shows that the High court has taken relevant factors into  consideration in coming to the conclusion that it is  not a  fit case  to interfere  in the  order  of  the learned Additional  Sessions Judge  directing the  State  to hand over the custody of animals to the owner.      Dr. Singhvi represents that Pinjrapole prepared to keep animals in  custody without  charging any  money  for  their maintenance. In  our view, that cannot be a correct criteria for giving custody of the animals to Pinjrapole particularly when the  Court has  to decide  the competing  claims of the owner and the Pinjrapole for their custody.      For the  aforementioned reasons,  we find  no merit  in these appeals,  they are  accordingly dismissed  but  having regard to  the facts  and circumstances  of the case without costs.