Page 1

       REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.  219        OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8971 of 2012)

Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai                   .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Gujarat & Anr.                                   ....  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated 25.09.2012 passed by the High Court  of  Gujarat  at  

Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 2755 of 2012  

whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by  

the appellant herein.

3)   Brief facts:

1

Page 2

a) The vehicle of the appellant, Eicher Truck, was seized  

by the police, which was found to be transporting 28 buffalo  

calves.   The First  Information  Report  (in  short  “FIR”)  was  

registered  against  the  appellant  on  02.08.2012  for  the  

offences  punishable  under  Sections  279  and  114  of  the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”), Sections 184, 177  

and  192  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988  (in  short  “M.V.  

Act”),  Sections  5,  6,  8  and  10  of  the  Gujarat  Animal  

Preservation   Act,  1954  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  

Principal Act”) and Section 11 of the  Prevention of Cruelty to  

Animals Act, 1960.

b) The appellant filed an application being Criminal Misc.  

Application No. 9 of 2012 under Section 451 of the Code of  

Criminal  Procedure,  1973  (in  short  “the  Code”)  for  the  

release  of  his  Eicher  truck  before  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  

First  Class,  Gandhinagar,  Gujarat.   Vide  order  dated  

24.08.2012,  the  Judicial  Magistrate  rejected  the  said  

application  on  the  ground  that  as  per  the  provisions  of  

Section  6B(3)  of  the  Gujarat  Animal  Preservation  

(Amendment)  Act,  2011  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  

2

Page 3

Amendment Act”), the vehicle shall not be released before  

the  expiry of six months from the date of its seizure.

c) Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  the  appellant  filed  an  

application  being  Criminal  Revision  Application  No.  73  of  

2012  before  the  District  &  Sessions  Judge,  Gandhinagar,  

which was also rejected on 01.09.2012

d) Dissatisfied  with  the  order  of  the  District  &  Sessions  

Judge, Gandhinagar, the appellant preferred Special Criminal  

Application  No.  2755 of  2012  before  the  High  Court.   By  

impugned order dated 25.09.2012, the High Court dismissed  

the said application.

e) Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed this  

appeal by way of special leave.

4) Heard  Mr.  O.P.  Bhadani,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant  and Mr.  Shomik Sanjanwala,  learned counsel  for  

the respondents.

5) The  only  point  for  consideration  in  this  appeal  is  

whether the Courts below are justified in rejecting the prayer  

of the appellant as per the provisions of the amended Act?

3

Page 4

6) The Bombay Animal  Preservation  Act,  1954  (in  short  

“the Bombay Act”), which was enacted for the preservation  

of  animals  suitable  for  milch,  breeding  or  for  agricultural  

purposes was made applicable to the State of Gujarat.  The  

following provisions of the said Act are relevant for the case  

in hand:

“Section  5  -  Prohibition  against  slaughter  without  certificate  from  Competent  Authority.  (1)  Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any  usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause  to be slaughtered any animal unless, he has obtained in  respect  of  such  animal  a  certificate  in  writing  from the  Competent  Authority  appointed  for  the  area  that  the  animal is fit for slaughter. (1A) No certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in  respect of—

(a) a cow; (b) the  calf  of  a  cow,  whether  male  or  female  and  if  

male, whether castrated or not; (c) a bull; (d) a bullock;  

(2) In respect of an animal to which sub-section (IA) does  not apply, no certificate shall be granted under sub-section  (1) if in the opinion of the Competent Authority-

(a) the  animal,  whether  male  or  female,  is  useful  or  likely to become useful for the purpose of draught or  any kind of agricultural operations;

(b) the  animal  if  male,  is  useful  or  likely  to  become  useful for the purpose of breeding;

(c) the animal,  if  female, is  useful or likely to become  useful  for  the  purpose  of  giving  milk  or  bearing  offspring.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to—

4

Page 5

(a) the slaughter of any of the following animals for such  bona fide religious purposes, as may be prescribed,  namely :--

(i) any animal above the age of fifteen years other than  a cow, bull or bullock.

(ii) a bull above the age of fifteen years (iii) a bullock above the age of fifteen years.

(b) the slaughter of any animal not being a cow or a calf  of a cow, bull or bullock, on such religious days as  may be prescribed :

Provided  that  a  certificate  in  writing  for  the  slaughter  referred to in clause (a) or (b) has been obtained from the  competent authority.

(4)  The  State  Government  may,  at  any  time  for  the  purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of  any order  passed by a  Competent  Authority  granting or  refusing to grant any certificate under this section, call for  and examine the records of the case and may pass such  order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

(5) A certificate under this section shall be granted in such  form and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.

(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) any order  passed by the Competent Authority granting or refusing to  grant  a  certificate,  and  any  order  passed  by  the  State  Government under sub-section (4) shall be final and shall  not be called in question in any Court.”

In  the  Gujarat  Animal  Preservation  Act,  1954,  after  

Section 6, the following new sections were inserted:-

“6A. (1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or  cause to be transported any animal specified in sub-section  (1A) of section 5 from any place within the State to any  another  place  within  the  State  for  the  purpose  of  its  slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or  

5

Page 6

with  the  knowledge  that  it  will  be  or  is  likely  to  be  so  slaughtered:

Provided  that  a  person  shall  be  deemed  to  be  transporting  such  animal  for  the  purpose  of  slaughter  unless contrary is proved thereto to the satisfaction of the  concerned authority  or  officer  by such person or  he has  obtained a permit  under  sub-section  (2)  for  transporting  animal  for  bona  fide  agricultural  or  animal  husbandry  purpose  from  such  authority  or  officer  as  the  State  Government may appoint in this behalf.

(2) (a) A person may make an application in the prescribed  form to the authority or officer referred to in sub-section  (1)  for  grant of  permit  in writing for transportation of  any  animal  specified  in  sub-section  (1A)  of  section  5  from any place within the State to any another place  within the State.

(b)If,  on  receipt  of  any  such  application  for  grant  of  permit,  such authority  is  of  the  opinion  that  grant  of  permit shall not be detrimental to the object of the Act,  it  may grant  permit  in such form and on payment of  such  fee  as  may  be  prescribed  and  subject  to  such  conditions as it may think fit to impose in accordance  with such rules as may be prescribed.

(3) Whenever  any  person  transports  or  causes  to  be  transported in contravention of provisions of sub-section  (1) any animal as specified in sub-section (1A) of section  5, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting  such animal along with such animal shall be liable to be  seized  by  such  authority  or  officer  as  the  State  Government may appoint in this behalf.

(4) The vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-section  (3) shall not be released by the order of the court on  bond or  surety  before  expiry  of  six  months  from the  date of  such seizure  or  till  the final  judgment  or  the  court, whichever is earlier.

6B.  (1)  No person shall directly or indirectly sell,  keep,  store,  transport,  offer  or  expose for  sell  or  bury beef  or  beef products in any form.

(2)Whenever  any  person  transports  or  causes  to  be  transported the beef or beef products, such vehicle or  

6

Page 7

any conveyance used in transporting such beef or beef  products along with such beef or beef products shall be  liable to be seized by such authority or officer as the  State Government may appoint in this behalf.

(3)The vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-section  (2) shall not be released by the order of the court on  bond or surety before the expiry of six months from the  date  of  such  seizure  or  till  the  final  judgment  of  the  court, whichever is earlier.

Explanation – For the purpose of this section “beef” means  flesh of any animal specified in sub-section (1A) of section  5, in any form.”  

7) Learned counsel  for  the appellant  submitted that  the  

provisions  of  the  Amended  Act  clearly  mention  the  

applicability of Section 6A(3) to the class of animals as given  

in Section 5 (1A) of the Principal Act, viz., cow, the calf of a  

cow,  bull  and  bullock,  however,  this  section  nowhere  

mentions  ‘buffalo  calves’  which  have  been  found  in  the  

seized  vehicle.   According  to  him,  in  the  absence  of  

prohibited  categories  of  animals  as  aforesaid,  invoking  of  

Section 6B(3) for not releasing the vehicle of the appellant  

before the expiry of six months from the date of seizure is  

not sustainable in law.   

8) In context of the above, it is relevant to note that on  

12.10.2011, an amendment was brought in the Principal Act  

7

Page 8

which  was  called  the  Gujarat  Animal  Preservation  

(Amendment) Act, 2011.  By virtue of this Amendment Act, a  

new Section 6A was brought in the Principal Act.  We have  

already extracted Section 6A of the Amended Act.

9) Sub-section  (3)  of  Section  6A  of  the  Amended  Act  

stipulates  that  whenever  any  person  transports  in  

contravention of provisions of Sub-section (1), any animal as  

specified in Section 5(1A), such vehicle or any conveyance  

used in transporting such animal, shall be liable to be seized  

by  the  authority/officer  concerned.   It  is  brought  to  our  

notice that the vehicle which has been impounded by the  

respondents was not carrying the category of animals which  

has  been  laid  down under  Section  5(1A).   The  vehicle  in  

question was transporting the ‘buffalo calves’.

10) A  perusal  of  the  FIR  shows  that  one  Sajidkhan  

Pirmohemmed Multani,  driver  of  the  vehicle  and Rajubhai  

Kalubhai  Multani  had  been  passing  from  Sector  30  of  

Gandhinagar,  Gujarat.   The  police  tried  to  stop  the  said  

vehicle  but  when  they  did  not  stop,  they  followed  and  

intercepted the  same.   On  search  being  made inside  the  

8

Page 9

vehicle,  they  found  28  buffalo  calves.   Respondent  No.2  

herein  arrested both the persons and seized Eicher  Truck  

bearing Registration No. GJ-9-Z-3801, which is the vehicle in  

question.

11) The courts below rejected the application filed by the  

appellant for release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the  

Code on the ground that  as per  the provisions of  Section  

6B(3) of the Amendment Act,  the vehicle of the appellant  

shall not be released before the expiry of six months from  

the  date  of  its  seizure.   On  going  through  the  relevant  

provisions,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  Courts  below  

including the High Court  grossly  erred by overlooking the  

correct  position  of  law  as  stated  in  Section  6A(3).   Sub-

section 1A of Section 5 stipulates the schedule of animals  

which are as under:

(a) a cow; (b) the calf of a cow, whether male or female and if male,  

whether castrated or not; (c) a bull; (d) a bullock.

It  is  clear  from the above description of  animals  that  the  

buffalo calf does not fall under the list of prohibited animals.  

9

Page 10

We have  already  noted  and  it  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  

vehicle in question was carrying 28 buffalo calves.   Thus,  

Section 6B(3) of the Amendment Act cannot be invoked in  

order to deny the claim of release of the vehicle before the  

expiry of six months from the date of its seizure.  

12) It is true that Section 5(1) prohibits slaughtering of any  

animal without a certificate in writing from the Competent  

Authority that the animal is fit for slaughter.  In other words,  

without  a  certificate  from competent  authority,  no  animal  

could  be  slaughtered.   Sub-section  (1A)  to  Section  5  

mandates that no certificate under sub-section (1) shall be  

granted in respect of the abovementioned animals.  In the  

said  section,  admittedly,  ‘buffalo  calf’  has  not  been  

mentioned as prohibited animal.  In such circumstance, the  

prohibition relating to release of vehicle before a period of  

six months as mentioned in Section 6B(3) of the Amendment  

Act is not applicable since the appellant was transporting 28  

buffalo calves only.  In view of the same, it is not advisable  

to  keep  the  seized  vehicle  in  the  police  station  in  open  

condition  which  is  prone  to  natural  decay  on  account  of  

1

Page 11

weather conditions.  In addition to the above interpretation,  

whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep the seized  

vehicle in the police station for a long period.

13) In  the  light  of  the  above  conclusion,  order  dated  

24.08.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar  

in  Criminal  Misc.  Application  No.  9  of  2012,  order  dated  

01.09.2012,  passed  by  the  District  and  Sessions  Judge,  

Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 73 of 2012  

and order  dated 25.09.2012, passed by the High Court in  

Special Criminal Application No. 2755 of 2012 are set aside  

and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle -  

Eicher Truck bearing Regn. No. GJ-9-Z-3801 forthwith.   

14) The appeal is allowed.    

    ………….…………………………J.   

               (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                  (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)   

1

Page 12

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 01, 2013.

1