Criminal Application (APL) No.148 of 2017

11th October, 2017.

Petitioner Counsel: Shri ANIL MARDIKAR, Sr. Adv. with Shri S.G. JOSHI
Respondent Counsel: Shri S.A. ASHIRGADE

Cases Cited:
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1=1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 [Para 13]

JUDGMENT

M. G. GIRATKAR, J. :- The criminal application is admitted and heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the present application, the applicant has challenged First Information Report/Crime No. 2232/2016 registered at Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur. It is submitted that the applicant is permanent resident of Pagalkhana Square, Chindwara Road, Nagpur. The applicant is possessing immovable property at the above mentioned address. The applicant is a businessman.

3. The applicant is registered dealer of hide and skin of dead animals and carries on the business from his godown in the name and style as M/s. Baba Traders. Certificate of registration is issued by the Sales Tax Department and copy of said certificate dated 9-1-2002 is annexed with this application at Annexure P-2. The applicant is doing the said business since long. The applicant owns huge godown. Similar persons, who are engaged in the said business, many times requested the applicant for storing their quantity of hide and skin on rental basis. The applicant due to relations did not ask for any receipt or documents as to how they have procured the said quantity or skin and hide of dead animals. Therefore only for this reason, such a huge quantity of hide and skin of dead animals was found in the godown of the applicant.

4. It is submitted that on 25-11-2016, PSI Dorlikar came to the godown of the applicant and searched the godown of the applicant. PSI Dorlikar and police staff found 4200 pieces of hide and skin of dead animals as well as 1500 tins of processed fat stored in the godown. The applicant was asked to produce the papers for keeping such huge quantity of hide and skin of dead animals. As the papers produced by the applicant were not proper, the non-applicant, police station arrested the applicant and the truck parked in front of the godown was seized. The non-applicant, police station without bothering to find out whether the offences were made out against the applicant, registered First Information Report vide Crime No. 2232/2016 against the applicant.

5. It is submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. The applicant is not involved in the offence of cow slaughtering and hence has not committed any offence under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995. The applicant submitted that no objection certificate issued by the Deputy Collector, Nagpur dated 15-7-1999 was produced.

6. It is submitted that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offences. He is falsely implicated. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the First Information Report, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the First Information Report/Crime No. 2232/2016.

7. Heard Shri Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. He has relied on the judgment in Criminal Application (APL) No. 664/2016 delivered by this Court to which one of us (M.G. Giratkar, J) was party. Shri Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that no offence is committed by the applicant as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act. The act of nonapplicant of registering crime against him for the offence is illegal and first information report is liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Ashirgade. He has strongly objected the application and submitted that action taken by police is legal and proper, hence, application is liable to be dismissed.

9. Report was lodged by PSI Dorlikar on 25-11-2016. It is alleged in the report by PSI Dorlikar that he received secret information, therefore, he along with police staff went to the godown of applicant. He inspected the said godown and found total 4200 pieces of hide and skin of dead animals and 1500 tins of processed fats stored. On his report, crime for the offence punishable under Section 429 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9 and 11 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came to be registered.

10. From the perusal of Section 9 and 11 of the Act, it is clear that Section 9 is in respect of the punishment about the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, "on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both". Section 11 is in respect of attempts to commit any such offence shall be deemed to have committed that offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with the punishment provided for such offence under Section 9.

11. Section 5A, 5B, 5C, 9, 9A and 11 of the Act are relevant. The provisions are reproduced as under :

5A - (1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported cow, bull or bullock from any place within the State to any place outside the State for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be so slaughtered.

(2) No person shall export or cause to be exported outside the State of Maharashtra cow, bull or bullock for the purpose of slaughter either directly or through his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf, in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be slaughtered.

5B - No person shall purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of or offer to purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of any cow, bull or bullock for slaughter or knowing or having reason to believe that such cow, bull or bullock shall be slaughtered.

5C - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall have in his possession flesh of any cow, bull or bullock slaughtered in contravention of the provisions of this Act.

5D- ..........

9. After Section 9 of the Principal Act, the following sections shall be inserted namely -

9A - Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sections 5C, 5D or s shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to two thousand rupees."

11. - Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act or attempt to commit any such offence shall be deemed to have committed that offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with the punishment provided for such offence under section 9 [or Section 9A].

12. From the perusal of first information report lodged by PSI Dorlikar, it is clear that the applicant has not committed any offence in respect of slaughtering of any animals. From the perusal of record and submissions of applicant, it is clear that he is doing the business of hide and skin of dead animals, therefore, applicant cannot be punished under Section 9 and 11 of the Act. Business of hide and skin is not prohibited under the said Act.

13. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1], if the first information report prima facie does not disclose any offence, then this Court can quash the first information report.

14. From the perusal of first information report, it is clear that transporting/doing business of hide and skin of dead animals is not prohibited. Therefore, offence punishable under the Act cannot be made out. Hence, First Information Report registered against the applicant is liable to be quashed and set aside.

15. Hence, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause (A) and quash and set aside First Information Report/Crime No. 2232/2016 registered against the applicant by Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur. No order as to costs.

Application allowed.