Justice R.S. Garg allows the release of over 150 cattle seized from villagers accused of animal cruelty, ruling that mere suspicion of illegal transport cannot justify continued seizure before conviction.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside lower court orders that denied the release of 151 seized cattle to their owners, holding that the applicants could not be deprived of possession when their guilt had not been proven. Justice R.S. Garg, in his judgment dated April 10, 2001, in Prem Chand vs State of Chhattisgarh (2001 Local Law 38), emphasized that “mere presumptions” about the animals being taken to another state for slaughter were insufficient to sustain such harsh measures.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the Sarpanch of Wadrafnagar village, who alleged that cattle were being driven 20–25 kilometers daily without proper feeding and were possibly being transported to Bihar for slaughter. Based on the complaint, police registered an FIR against the petitioners under Sections 11(1)(a), (h), and (n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 6, 7, and 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 1959.
Police seized 94 cattle from one applicant, 49 from another, and eight from a third. The accused—residents of nearby villages Maheda, Ramnagar, and Wadrafnagar—claimed they were bona fide cattle owners engaged in legitimate agricultural or trading activities. Their applications under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for interim custody were rejected by the Judicial Magistrate and later by the Sessions Court.
Justice Garg, however, found that the prosecution had presented no substantive evidence proving that the animals were being taken across state borders for slaughter. The case diary, he noted, contained only statements from a few individuals “without any indication on what basis they presumed the cattle were being taken to Bihar.”
The Court stressed that until guilt is established, ownership and lawful possession must be respected. It was “improper and impractical,” Justice Garg observed, to keep the animals under state custody at the expense of the accused, who were still presumed innocent.
“The applicants, who have yet not been held guilty, cannot be saddled with unnecessary expenditure likely to be incurred by the custodian. The courts below, without taking into consideration the practical problems faced by all concerned, rejected the applications—such orders cannot be approved,” the judgment stated.
The High Court thus directed that the seized cattle be returned to their respective owners, subject to strict conditions. Each applicant was required to execute a Supurdnama (undertaking) to the satisfaction of the trial court, provide solvent local surety equivalent to the value of the animals, and ensure that the cattle were not taken outside the jurisdiction of Police Station Basantpur. The court further ordered monthly medical reports and weekly updates to be filed before the trial court to prevent misuse or neglect.
Justice Garg’s ruling underscores a recurring judicial concern over the prolonged custody of livestock in animal cruelty or transport cases, where accused owners face significant financial and logistical hardship long before any conviction. The Court made it clear that compassion for animals must not override the presumption of innocence or basic fairness toward their owners.
Case Details
- Case Title: Prem Chand vs State of Chhattisgarh
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
- Judge: Justice R.S. Garg
- Date of Decision: April 10, 2001
- Citation: 2001 Local Law 38
- Equivalent Citations: 2002 2 MPJR 12, 2001 2 MPHT (Chh) 93, 2001 1 BilasLJ 109
- Case Type: Misc. Criminal Case No. 703 of 2001
- Subject: Criminal / Forest Law / Animal Cruelty
- Acts Referred:
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Section 11(1)(a), (h), (n)
- M.P. Krishi Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 1959 – Sections 6, 7, 11
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 451, 482
- Final Decision: Application allowed; cattle to be released to owners under court supervision
