Possession Of Skin Of Dead Cows Or Bullocks Not An Offence: Bombay High Court

first_imgNews UpdatesPossession Of Skin Of Dead Cows Or Bullocks Not An Offence: Bombay High Court Sparsh Upadhyay21 Dec 2020 11:27 PMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court last week ruled that there is no prohibition for the possession of skin of dead animals and in absence of such prohibition; no offence would be made out under Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. The bench of Justice V. M. Deshpande & Anil S. Kilor further noted that even if any circular/notification/order is issued by the State…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Bombay High Court last week ruled that there is no prohibition for the possession of skin of dead animals and in absence of such prohibition; no offence would be made out under Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. The bench of Justice V. M. Deshpande & Anil S. Kilor further noted that even if any circular/notification/order is issued by the State Government, prohibiting possession of skin, such circular, notification or order (having no statutory force), then it won’t prevail over the provisions of the statute and to that extent, it would be in contravention with the statute. Thus, the Court said that the contravention of any such notification or circular or order as regards possession of skin will not attract Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter before the Court The Court was hearing plea of an accused praying for quashing of first Information Report in Crime No.265 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Section 5-(A), 5- (B), 5-(C), 9, 9-(A) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, read with Section 188 IPC and Section 105, 117 of the Bombay Police Act. [NOTE: Section 5A of MAPA, 1976 Prohibits transport and export of cow, bull or bullock for slaughter. Section 5B prohibits sale, purchase, disposal in any other manner of cow, bull or bullock. Section 5C prohibits possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock. Section 9 is related to penalties for contravention of Sections 5, 5A or 5B. Section 9A relates to penalty for contravention of Sections 5C, 5D or 6] The prosecution alleged that a Pick Up Bolero van was found carrying animal’s skin and therefore, on a complaint lodged by the President of Bajrang Dal, Khamgaon, a first Information Report was registered. It was the further case of the prosecution that on verification, it was found that the vehicle was carrying 187 skins of cow species, which was verified by the Animal Husbandary Department. Court’s observations The Court observed, “(Allegedly), the applicant was carrying 187 skins of cows in the van. There are no allegations that the applicant was transporting or exporting cow, bull or bullock for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of provision of the Act, 1976. There are also no allegations that the applicant purchased or sold or otherwise disposed of or offered to purchase or sell or dispose of cow, bull or bullock for slaughter.” Thus, the Court concluded that “no offence constitutes against the applicant either under Section 5-(A) or 5-(B) of the Act of 1976.” Regarding Section 5 (c), which prohibits possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock, the Court observed, “The main difference between ‘skin’ and ‘flesh’ is that the ‘skin’ is a soft outer covering organ of vertebrates and the ‘flesh’ is a soft substance of an animal body that consists of muscle and fat.” Thus, the Court concluded that it couldn’t be said that the word ‘flesh’ used under Section 5-(C) of the Act, 1976, covers the skin of animal. Consequently, the Court said that “no offence under Section 5-(A), 5-(B), 5-(C) attracts in the present matter and consequently Section 9 and 9-(A) also would not attract.” Lastly, noting that no offence constitutes against the applicant as alleged, the Court opined that the instant case was a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashment of the First Information Report in question. Case title – Shafiqullaha Kha Ashfaqullha Kha, v. State of Maharashtra and another [Criminal Application (APL) NO.688 OF 2018] Appearance – Advocate A.V. Bhide [for applicant]; Addl.P.P. N.S. Rao [for State] Click Here To Download OrderRead OrderNext Storylast_img

first_imgNews UpdatesPossession Of Skin Of Dead Cows Or Bullocks Not An Offence: Bombay High Court Sparsh Upadhyay21 Dec 2020 11:27 PMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court last week ruled that there is no prohibition for the possession of skin of dead animals and in absence of such prohibition; no offence would be made out under Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. The bench of Justice V. M. Deshpande & Anil S. Kilor further noted that even if any circular/notification/order is issued by the State…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Bombay High Court last week ruled that there is no prohibition for the possession of skin of dead animals and in absence of such prohibition; no offence would be made out under Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. The bench of Justice V. M. Deshpande & Anil S. Kilor further noted that even if any circular/notification/order is issued by the State Government, prohibiting possession of skin, such circular, notification or order (having no statutory force), then it won’t prevail over the provisions of the statute and to that extent, it would be in contravention with the statute. Thus, the Court said that the contravention of any such notification or circular or order as regards possession of skin will not attract Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter before the Court The Court was hearing plea of an accused praying for quashing of first Information Report in Crime No.265 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Section 5-(A), 5- (B), 5-(C), 9, 9-(A) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, read with Section 188 IPC and Section 105, 117 of the Bombay Police Act. [NOTE: Section 5A of MAPA, 1976 Prohibits transport and export of cow, bull or bullock for slaughter. Section 5B prohibits sale, purchase, disposal in any other manner of cow, bull or bullock. Section 5C prohibits possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock. Section 9 is related to penalties for contravention of Sections 5, 5A or 5B. Section 9A relates to penalty for contravention of Sections 5C, 5D or 6] The prosecution alleged that a Pick Up Bolero van was found carrying animal’s skin and therefore, on a complaint lodged by the President of Bajrang Dal, Khamgaon, a first Information Report was registered. It was the further case of the prosecution that on verification, it was found that the vehicle was carrying 187 skins of cow species, which was verified by the Animal Husbandary Department. Court’s observations The Court observed, “(Allegedly), the applicant was carrying 187 skins of cows in the van. There are no allegations that the applicant was transporting or exporting cow, bull or bullock for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of provision of the Act, 1976. There are also no allegations that the applicant purchased or sold or otherwise disposed of or offered to purchase or sell or dispose of cow, bull or bullock for slaughter.” Thus, the Court concluded that “no offence constitutes against the applicant either under Section 5-(A) or 5-(B) of the Act of 1976.” Regarding Section 5 (c), which prohibits possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock, the Court observed, “The main difference between ‘skin’ and ‘flesh’ is that the ‘skin’ is a soft outer covering organ of vertebrates and the ‘flesh’ is a soft substance of an animal body that consists of muscle and fat.” Thus, the Court concluded that it couldn’t be said that the word ‘flesh’ used under Section 5-(C) of the Act, 1976, covers the skin of animal. Consequently, the Court said that “no offence under Section 5-(A), 5-(B), 5-(C) attracts in the present matter and consequently Section 9 and 9-(A) also would not attract.” Lastly, noting that no offence constitutes against the applicant as alleged, the Court opined that the instant case was a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashment of the First Information Report in question. Case title – Shafiqullaha Kha Ashfaqullha Kha, v. State of Maharashtra and another [Criminal Application (APL) NO.688 OF 2018] Appearance – Advocate A.V. Bhide [for applicant]; Addl.P.P. N.S. Rao [for State] Click Here To Download OrderRead OrderNext Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

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