Leave to amend prayer clause.
Heard Mr.B.S.Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioners.
The learned Advocate for the petitioners has pointed out that the provisions invoked in the First Information Report are under the provisions of section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and under the provisions of sections 5, 8, 9 and 10 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 as well as under the provisions of section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations are to the effect that the accused therein were transporting cow meat mixed with buffalo meat and that the certificate issued by the Doctor as produced by them appears to be suspicious. Attention of the Court is drawn to the provisions of sections 5, 8, 9 and 10 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 as well as to the provisions of section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to point out that both these enactments pertain to live animals and that provisions of both the Acts have wrongly been invoked.
Section 5 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 provides for prohibition against slaughter without certificate from Competent Authority. Prima-facie, looking to the nature of the allegations made in the First Information Report, it is not the case of the complainant that any slaughter has been carried out within the State of Gujarat so as to attract the provisions of the said Act. Insofar as the invocation of section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is concerned, a bare perusal of the definition of animal as defined under section 2(a) of the Act shows that the same pertains to any live creature other than the human beings. In the circumstances, prima-facie, the provisions of the said Act also are not attracted to the facts of the present case.
Insofar as section 467 of the Code is concerned, as is apparent from the complaint, the complainant has only stated that the certificate issued by the Doctor appears to be suspicious.
In the aforesaid circumstances, these matters require consideration, hence, RULE returnable on 16th July, 2008. By way of ad-interim relief, further proceedings of First Information Report registered vide Vadodara Rural Karjan Police Station II-C.R.No.175 of 2007, are hereby stayed.
On the returnable date, the respondent State shall point out the authority of the respondent No.3 to stop and inspect such consignments of meat.
Mr.K.P.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Gujarat.
Direct Service is permitted qua respondent No.2.
The petitioner is permitted to serve respondent No.3 directly through the concerned Police Station.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) Amit/-