- (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of P.C.A Case no.110 of 2012 including the order dated 12.7.2012 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 3, 11(i)(a)(d)(e)(f)(h)(i)(k),38(3), 39(4)(b), 29(1)(2)(3) and (5) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 as well as Rules 47, 48,49, 50, 52,54, 96, 97 of the Cattle Transportation, 1978 and also Sections 3, 4, 4(a), 4(d), 5, 12(1)(2)(3) and 5 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 as well as under Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Rules, 2011 has been taken against the petitioners. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. It is the case of the complainant, Inspector I/C, SPCA, Jharkhand that one truck, bearing registration no.BR -44G -0114 when was intercepted by the complainant within the area of Rajganj Police Station, Dhanbad, 19 Bovine Animals (consisting of one young dry cow and eighteen bullocks) in place of six adult animals were found being carried in a condition which was not at all conducive for them tobe carried and that too without any facility for food, water and medicines which was in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules and, therefore, the truck along with 19 Bovine Animals were seized under the seizure list and those animals were handed over to Sri Ganga Gaushala, Katras, Dhanbad for their safe custody, daily maintenance and medical care as per relevant provision of the prevention of cruelty to Animal Act as well as Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 and the truck was handed over to Rajganj Police Station, Dhanbad for safe custody.
(2.) DURING investigation, it was found that the aforesaid animals were being transported from Arwal, Jehanabad,Bihar via Dhanbad (G.T. Road) to Ilam Bazar Pasuhatt, Birbhum, West Bengal for the purpose of their slaughter. On such allegation, prosecution report was submitted on 12.7.2012, upon which cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken which is under challenge.
(3.) MR .B.N.Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the complainant never happens to be an Inspector of Police, rather happens to be an Inspector of an N.G.O known as SPCA, Jharkhand, who has never been authorized under the Act to launch prosecution rather duties and power of the members of such Society under Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Establishment of Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,2001 are to aid the Government or Local Authority to enforce provision of prevention of cruelty to animal Act but the complainant not only effected search and seizure but has also launched prosecution by filing prosecution report, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken, though under the provision as contained in Section 32 of the prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, it is only the police officer who can launch prosecution under the prevention of cruelty to Animal Act and thereby the court committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. It was further submitted that Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Rules, 2001 has been framed under Section 38(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 whereby under Rule 3 District SPCA has been established in every district to which Deputy Commissioner is the President whereas Superintendent of Police is the vice -President whereas other officials such as, District Animal Husbandry Officer, District Animal Husbandry Doctor, Divisional Forest Officer including two members the representatives of the Animal Welfare Organization actively involved in the work of prevention of cruelty to animal and welfare of the animal shall be the member. That apart one person elected by the general body of the members of the society shall also be the member. In this regard it was further pointed out that the society as has been formed by the Government would also include a society of prevention of cruelty to animal functioning in the district on the date of commencement of the Rules but inspector, who has lodged the prosecution is not the Inspector of Society functioning in the district of Dhanbad, rather it is the society which is known as SPCA, Jharkhand and the Director of the SPCA claims to have deputed the complainant at Dhanbad but in spite of that the complainant does not have any authority to make search and seizure and to launch prosecution under the prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and also under the provision of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Slaughter Act.;