Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2001(2)MPHT93(CG)
..... 160/2000 in relation to offences punishable under sections 11(1) (a), (h) and (n) of prevention of cruelty to animals act, 1960 and sections 6, 7 and 11 of m.p. ..... if any mishap occurs in relation to any of the cattle, then the applicants shall not do away with the dead body of the said animal/cattle but shall immediately make a report of mishap to the concerned police station and shall also make an application to the court that in view of the said mishap/death of the cattle, proper steps are required to be ..... it is also alleged against the applicants that the applicants were treating the cattle with cruelty and were liable to be prosecuted. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2005(1)MPHT1(CG)
..... while interpreting the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 35 of the prevention of cruelty to animals act, 1960, which lays down that if the animal is not be sent to infirmaries for treatment then the magistrate shall send them to ..... though there is a special provision in the prevention of cruelty to animals act, 1960, for sending the cattle to pinjrapole, the hon'ble apex court in the matter of manager, pinjrapole deudar (supra), decided, 'in a case where the owner is claiming the custody of the animal, pinjrapole has no preferential right'. ..... will have a better claim for the custody of the animal during the prosecution; (4) the condition in which the animal was found at the time of inspection and seizure; (5) the possibility of the animal being again subjected to cruelty'.13. ..... held that-'in deciding whether the interim custody of the animal be given to the owner who is facing prosecution, or to the pinjrapole, the following facts will be relevant: (1) the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the owner; (2) whether it is the first offence alleged or he has been found guilty of offences under the act earlier; (3) if the owner is facing the first prosecution under the act, the animal is not liable to be seized, so the owner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3453
..... was further mentioned that no evidence has been so far gathered for any offence under the prevention of cruelty to animals act, 1960 (for short 'the act'). ..... this fact indicates that the police/district administration did not take any action on the complaint of the petitioners solely because the persons involved in the illegal act of taking the animals of the petitioners were the members of the ruling party.religious sentiments cannot be used as a pretext for taking the law in hands by the miscreants and interfering in peaceful vocation by a member of society and thereby depriving ..... view of the admitted fact that there was no evidence against the petitioners of any offence under the act and that the authorities wanted to restore the cattle to the petitioners, however, they are unable to comply with the directions is sufficient justification for the petitioners to expect that they shall be getting their animals back with the intervention of the police authorities/district administration and ultimately when they failed in their endeavour, ..... are poor traders, who earn their livelihood by personally visiting the cattle market in the area, and purchasing and selling the animals and because of the acts of omission and commission on the part of the police authorities/district administration, respondent no. ..... could not collect any evidence against the petitioners that they purchased the animals for taking them to the slaughter house or they treated the animals purchased by them with cruelty. .....
Tag this Judgment!