Petition filed by accused 1 to 9 in C.M.P No.2383/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Perinthalmanna.
2. Prayer in the petition reads as follows :
“ For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure III Final Report, in Crime No.255/2007 of Kolathur Police Station, the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate and all further proceedings thereon which is now pending as C.C No.300/2010 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate- I, Perinthalmanna and pass such other orders and directions in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Heard Sri.M.K.Damodaran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/accused. Sri.V.Krishna Menon, learned Standing Counsel for the Guruvayur Devaswom Board and Sri.K.K.Rajeev, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners 2 and 4 expired pending this proceedings.
5. Annexure I is the complaint filed by the second respondent before the learned Magistrate. It is alleged that the petitioners, as members of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board, have committed an offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') and also Section 298 I.P.C r/w Section 34 I.P.C. Section 11 of the Act falls within Chapter III which deal with Cruelty to animals generally. Section 11 of the Act specifically deals with treating animals cruelly. Section 11(h) and (i) of the Act is excerpted hereunder for clarity :
“11. Treating animals cruelly If any person -
(a) x x x x x x x x x x
(h) being the owner of any animal, fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or
(i) without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst; or
(j) x x x x x x x x he shall be punishable in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty five rupees but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.
(2) x x x x x”
6. Section 298 I.P.C deals with uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person. On a careful reading of the entire complaint, I am of the view that the offence under Section 298 I.P.C is not at all made out. Therefore to that extent, this complaint is not maintainable.
7. In respect of offence under Section 11 of the Act, the complainant contends that cattle offered to Lord Shri Guruvayurappan are not properly looked after, not even fed. The cattle, which require medical aid are neglected. Besides, they are not provided with sufficiently spacious cow shed and left to the vageries of weather. Therefore, the provisions in Section 11 of the Act are violated.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the provisions in the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, none of the accused is personally cast with the responsibility of running the “Gokulam” at Vengad in Malappuram District. Section 10 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act deals with duties of the committee. On a careful perusal of the said provision, I do not find any specific mention about the duty of the committee members to take care of the cattle in “Gokulam”. Certainly, the committee will be responsible for the ultimate control and administration of “Gokulam”. By no stretch of reasoning, it can be said that the Chairman and Members of the Committee are directly responsible for the alleged offence. That apart, in paragraph 8 of the petition, the petitioners have specifically stated that administration of “Gokulam” is entrusted with Deputy Administrator, Livestock. He is the Head of the Staff, who look after animals. It is pertinent to note that he is not made an accused in this case. Merely because of their office the Chairman and the Members of the Committee cannot be held criminally liable for the alleged offences.
9. That apart, learned counsel for the Guruvayur Devaswom Board submitted that in a properly constituted proceedings, pending before the Devaswom Bench of this Court, the issue of administration of “Gokulam” at Vengad is directly involved. Appropriate directions are time and again issued by this Court in that matter. For that reason also, the learned counsel contended, the petition is not maintainable. Yet another reason stated by the learned counsel is that there is a clear distinction between “nadayiruthal” of Elephants and “nadathallal” of Cattle. According to the learned counsel, elephants are offered to Lord Shri Guruvayurappan by a process called “nadayiruthal” and there are certain rules and regulations governing the said ritual. Whereas even in the case of abandoned cattle, it becomes the moral and spiritual responsibility of the Devaswom to take care of them. That is called “nadathallal”. Viewing from that angle also, the allegations in the complaint would not constitute an offence, contended the learned counsel for the Guruvayur Devaswom Board. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner, that the cattle living in “Gokulam” at Vengad in Malappuram District need to be protected and properly fed cannot be rejected for any reason. Certainly, they should be provided with medical care, also, if required. As things stand now, that grievance will be taken care of in appropriate proceedings pending before this Court. However, that allegation cannot be taken as a reason to find that the petitioners have committed any offence either under the Act or under the I.P.C. Therefore, I find that the prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of court.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Complaint and entire proceedings in C.C No.300/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Perinthalmanna is hereby quashed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk