Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh vs The State

The petitioner, Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh, is a voluntary Organisation which came forward to maintain Cattle, namely cows and calves, which became the case property in Cr. No. 149/91 of Uppal Police station, pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Ss. 5 and 10 of A.P. Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act 1977.

202 cows and calves were seized from various persons under the provisions of the A.P. Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 (''the Act'', in short) as it was alleged that the persons from whom the cattle were seized, were acting in violation of Ss. 5 and 6 of the Act, and were going to slaughter or cause to offer them for slaughter.

Pending enquiry into the case, the persons claiming to be the owners of the animals filed Crl.M.P. Nos. 2638 to 2644/91 claiming interim custody of the animals under S. 451, Cr.P.C. The petitioner society also filed Crl.M.P. 2645/91 for interim custody of the cattle. The learned Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Hyderabad East and North, by his order dated 26-8-91 directed the interim custody of the animals to be with the petitioner-society in preference to the persons claiming ownership of the cattle, observing that the very purpose of the Act will be defeated, if the interim custody is given to the so-called owners, as they may slaughter the animals if custody is given to them. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner-society is a voluntary organization, engaged in charitable activities of looking after the welfare of the cattle etc., the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the conditions imposed in the order, namely, in directing the petitioner to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in addition to execution of a bond for Rs. 60,000/- Smt. Jayasree Sarathy, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner is serving a public cause and has come forward to look after the dumb animals and to protect them, and it is not proper to insist upon the petitioner furnishing security, apart from the execution of a personal bond. The contention of the learned counsel is well-founded In Krushi Goseva Sangh and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, it was held that, if the Organisations like Goseva Sangh come forward for taking responsibility for preservation and protection of the cattle then they should be preferred. In Ejaz Ahmed Kallu Alias Jhimka v. State of Maharashtra (Crl MP No. 714/86 dt. 12-8-86) referred to in the aforesaid decision, the maintenance charge of each animal is fixed at Rs. 7/- per day and it was directed that at the conclusion of the trial, the account should be verified on that basis. As that decision was rendered in the year 1986, it will be necessary that the Court concerned will have to evaluate as to what will be the probable maintenance charge of each animal, having regard to the cost involved in the present day. The imposition of the condition to furnish security for execution of a personal bond is not warranted and has to be deleted. Further, there should be a direction that the person claiming ownership of the cattle should be directed to pay the cost of maintenance. The cattle shall be kept in the custody of the petitioner-society.

The revision is accordingly allowed in part. The direction with regard to the furnishing of security by the petitioner is set aside. The rest of the directions, namely, execution of a bond for Rs. 60,000/- and the direction to produce that cattle as and when required by the Court shall remain. There shall be a further direction to the learned Magistrate to fix the cost of maintenance of the cattle kept in the interim custody of the petitioner, and the persons who are ultimately held to be owners of the cattle will be directed by the learned Magistrate to pay the cost of maintenance, to the petitioner society. With the above modification, the revision is allowed.

Order accordingly.