Possession of skin of dead cows, bullocks not an offence: Bombay HC

Possession of skin of dead cows, bullocks not an offence: Bombay HC

The Nagpur bench of urban centre state supreme court bench recently commands that that mere possession of a dead associateimal’s skin wouldn’t quantity to an offence below the geographical region Animal Preservation Act, 1976, that prohibits slaughtering, importing, commerce and possessing beef.

The bench of Justice V. M. Deshpande & Anil S. Kilor noted that there’s no prohibition for the possession of skin of dead animals under the Act and any noted that even though any circular/notification/order is issued by the authorities, prohibiting possession of skin, such circular won’t prevail over the provisions of the statute.

The court passed the judgment on December fourteen once hearing a plea by one Shafiqullaha Kha, driver of the van allegedly carrying the skin of dead cows. The petitioner sought-after to quash FIR against him as per section 5A ( prohibition on transportation of cow, bull or bullock from anywhere inside the state for purpose of slaughter), 5B ( prohibition on export of cow, bull or bullock inside the state or anywhere outside for slaughtering) and 5C ( prohibition on possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered) among others.

The prosecution had alleged that in Gregorian calendar month 2018 a van was found carrying associateanimal’s skin and a grievance was lodged by an individual United Nations agency claimed to be a president of Bajrang dekaliter native unit and an FIR was registered in Shivaji Nagar police headquarters. The Police any aforementioned that they verified the grievance and it had been found that the vehicle was carrying 187 skins of cow species and therefore the same was confirmed by the agriculture department.

Advocate A V Bhide for the someone, United Nations agency challenged the FIR aforementioned that necessary documents as well as Udyog Aadhar memoranda, a license below the geographical region retailers and institution Act, and a bill ready for mercantilism of rawhide were provided and so there was no resistance of any provisions of the state Animal Preservation law.

Additional functionary N S Rao, showing for the Police, however, powerfully opposed the plea and sought-after its dismissal.

After hearing submissions, the court ascertained that whereas there have been allegations that the someone was carrying 187 skins of cows within the van, there was no allegation that he was transporting or commerce cow, bull or bullock for purpose of slaughter. Thus, no offence constitutes against someone as per the Act of 1976, the bench aforementioned.

The bench crystal rectifier by Justice Deshpande ascertained, “There isn’t any doubt that the skin isn’t lined below the provisions of the Act of geographical region Animal Preservation Act, 1976. Thus, there’s no prohibition for the possession of skin of dead animals and in absence of such prohibition, we’ve got of a convinced read that no offence below Section 5-(A), 5-(B), 5-(C) attracts within the gift matter and consequently Section nine and 9-(A) ( each providing punishments below the law) additionally wouldn’t attract.”

While quashing FIR against the someone, the court command, “Moreover, in absence of any statutory provision, that prohibits possession of skin of a beast, even if, any circular or notification or order has been issued by the authorities, prohibiting possession of skin, such circular, notification or order that has no statutory force won’t prevail over the provisions of the statute and thereto extent, it’d be in resistance with the statute. Thus, the resistance of any such notification or circular or order as regards possession of skin won’t attract Section 188 (contempt of the lawful authority of public servant) of the Indian legal code.”

author

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *