is duty of Nagar Nigam and Police to remove them and to
ensure that no cows or animals come on road creating
obstruction to traffic and threat to life.
Secretary, Nagar Vikas, State of U.P. is directed to issue
necessary instructions in this regard to Nagar
Ayukts/Executive Officers of local bodies. If animals are
spotted on city roads and not removed quickly, proper action
may be contemplated. Superintendents of Police are directed
to extend necessary assistance to the Municipal
Boards/Municipal Corporations in carrying out the above
directions.
Cattle owners cannot be seen withholding their hands, to
leave the cattle on road surviving on water of drains/sewer
and garbage which is definitely a cruelty. As such, owners of
such animals should be prosecuted under the provisions of
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Act
and Sections 289, 428, 429 I.P.C. as well. This will deter
cattle owner from frequently leaving animals free on roads,
putting their as well as citizens' life in danger.
Cows basking on road/traffic islands and digging polythene
in garbage yard is not a pleasant sight, especially in the
capital city of State. To rid Lucknow of this menace, Nagar16
Ayukta, Lucknow is directed to launch a drive immediately
in the light of discussion made above, with the help of
police force to be provided by S.S.P.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
LAKHNOW BENCH
Case :- BAIL No. - 9113 of 2015
Imtiyaz V State Of U.P.
Dated;04/12/2015
Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J.
1. This batch of bail applications has been filed seeking release
of the accused persons challaned mainly under the Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 ('Act' in
short).
2. Smt. Madhulika Yadav, learned Additional Government
Advocate has strongly opposed the bail and contended that
cow slaughtering leads to acrimony between various groups
of society. It has also resulted into riot like situations which
poses serious problem for law and order before the State.
She further submitted that due to above reason, State had to
apply U.P. Gangster Act against some of the applicants. She
has placed the provisions of U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960, U.P. Goshala Adhiniyam, 1964 and U.P. Go-Sewa
Ayog Adhiniyam, 1999, apart from some judgments in
support of her arguments.
3. On the other hand, counsels appearing for accused persons,
namely, Messers Sumit K. Srivastava, Rajiva Dubey,5
Nadeem Murtaza, Abdul Samad, Dhirendra Pratap Singh,
have emphasized that applicants have been falsely
implicated. In fact, Act is being misused against innocent
persons. Their submission is that whenever any meat is
recovered, it is normally shown as cow meat (beef) without
getting it examined or analyzed by the Forensic Laboratory.
In most of the cases, meat is not sent for analysis. Accused
persons continue in jail for an offence that may not have
been committed at all and which is triable by Magistrate Ist
Class, having maximum sentence upto 7 years.
4. It is further submitted that whenever cows are shown to be
recovered, no proper recovery memo is prepared and one
does not know where cows go after recovery.
5. It is further argued that Goshalas do not accept the nonmilching
cows or old cows and they are left to wander on
the roads. Similarly, owner of the cows after milking, leave
the cows to roam on roads, to drink drainage/sewer water
and eat garbage, polythene etc. Moreover, cows and cattle
on the road are menace to the traffic and number of deaths
have been reported due to them. In the rural areas cattle
owners who are unable to feed their live stock, abandon
them. They cannot be transported outside the State for fear
of locals and police. There are no pastures now. Thus, these
animals wander here and there destroying the crops. Earlier,
farmers were afraid of 'Neelgai' (Vanroj an antelope) now
they have to save their crops from the stray cows. Whether
cows are on roads or on fields their abandonment stands to
adversely affect the society in a big way. Some way out has
to be found out to keep them either in the cow shelters or
with the owners; if Cow slaughter Act is to be implemented
in letter and spirit.6
6. Sri Udai Raj Singh, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Lucknow, Director Animal Husbandry, Sri Anoop Yadav
Director, Mandi Parishad, U.P. and Registrar, Goshala Ayog
have assisted the Court.
7. It was informed by Registrar of the Goshala Ayog that the
Ayog has come into being and it will take care of street
cows found wandering here and there.
8. Sri Udai Raj Singh, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Lucknow has expressed his difficulty in catching the cattle
on road owing to opposition by locals and non availability
of police force.
9. Director, Mandi Parishad, Sri Anoop Yadav informs the
Court that in exercise of the power under Section 19 of the
U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, one percent
of total income of Mandi Samitis (specified) is marked for
Goshalas, but rampant misuse of funds has been reported.
10.Needless to say that Article 48 of the Constitution of India
enjoins the State Government to organize animal husbandry
on modern and scientific lines and, in particular, to take
steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and
prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch
and draught cattle.
11.Articles 48, 48-A and 51-A(g) (relevant clause) of the
Constitution are reproduced below:
"48. Organisation of agriculture and animal
husbandry.The State shall endeavour to organise
agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and
scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for
preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting
the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and
draught cattle.
48-A. Protection and improvement of environment and7
safeguarding of forests and wild life.The State shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
51-A. Fundamental duties.It shall be the duty of every
citizen of India
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to
have compassion for living creatures;"
12.His Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Gujrat Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab
Jamat and others reported in [(2005) 8 SCC 534] while
considering the scope of Article 48 of the Constitution of
India have held that even after a milch cattle ceases to
produce milk and a draught cattle loses its utility and
rendered useless on account of injury or sickness would not
take them out of the purview of Article 48. Relevant
paragraph nos. 66, 67 and 68 of the judgment are being
reproduced below:
“66. Any other meaning assigned to this expression is
likely to result in absurdity. A milch cattle goes
through a life cycle during which it is sometimes
milch and sometimes it becomes dry. This does not
mean that as soon as a milch cattle ceases to produce
milk, for a short period as a part of its life cycle, it
goes out of the purview of Article 48, and can be
slaughtered. A draught cattle may lose its utility on
account of injury or sickness and may be rendered
useless as a draught cattle during that period. This
would not mean that if a draught cattle ceases to be of
utility for a short period on account of sickness or
injury, it is excluded from the definition of 'draught
cattle' and deprived of the benefit of Article 48.
67. This reasoning is further strengthened by Article
51A(g) of the Constitution. The State and every citizen
of India must have compassion for living creatures.
Compassion, according to Oxford Advanced Learners'
Dictionary means "a strong feeling of sympathy for
those who are suffering and a desire to help them".
According to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary,8
compassion is "fellow feeling, or sorrow for the
sufferings of another : pity". Compassion is suggestive
of sentiments, a soft feeling, emotions arising out of
sympathy, pity and kindness. The concept of
compassion for living creatures enshrined in Article
51A(g) is based on the background of the rich cultural
heritage of India the land of Mahatama Gandhi,
Vinobha, Mahaveer, Budha, Nanak and others. No
religion or holy book in any part of the world teaches
or encourages cruelty. Indian society is a pluralistic
society. It has unity in diversity. The religions, cultures
and people may be diverse, yet all speak in one voice
that cruelty to any living creature must be curbed and
ceased. A cattle which has served human beings is
entitled to compassion in its old age when it has
ceased to be milch or draught and becomes so-called
'useless'. It will be an act of reprehensible ingratitude
to condemn a cattle in its old age as useless and send it
to a slaughter house taking away the little time from its
natural life that it would have lived, forgetting its
service for the major part of its life, for which it had
remained milch or draught. We have to remember : the
weak and meek need more of protection and
compassion.
68. In our opinion, the expression 'milch or draught
cattle' as employed in Article 48 of the Constitution is
a description of a classification or species of cattle as
distinct from cattle which by their nature are not milch
or draught and the said words do not include milch or
draught cattle, which on account of age or disability,
cease to be functional for those purposes either
temporarily or permanently. The said words take
colour from the preceding words "cows or calves". A
specie of cattle which is milch or draught for a number
of years during its span of life is to be included within
the said expression. On ceasing to be milch or draught
it cannot be pulled out from the category of "other
milch and draught cattle."
13.Taking resort to entry 15 of list-II Schedule VII of
Constitution of India, State Government has enacted the
Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Purpose is to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and
its progeny, as culled out from preamble. 9
14.Section 3 of the Act is being reproduced below:
“3. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter- No person shall
slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause
to be offered for slaughter, a cow, bull or bullock in
any place in Uttar Pradesh, anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force or any usage or
custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”
15.It placed prohibition on slaughtering of cows in Uttar
Pradesh, with Section 4 providing exception for cows
suffering from any contagious/infectious disease or
subjected to experimentation in the interest of medical and
public health research. However, Section 4 of the Act has
been omitted by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2002 dated 12.09.2002.
16.Section 5 of the Act prohibits sale and transport of beef or
beef products except for medicinal purpose. Section 5-A
regulates transport of cows etc..
17.It is, thus, apparent that there is absolute prohibition on the
slaughtering of cows, transportation or sale for the purpose
of slaughtering.
18.Section 7 of the Act obligates Goshala to accept cow, bull or
bullock, surrendered by its owner but quoting non
availability of accommodation, old and infirm cows/progeny
are seldom accepted. Section 7 of the Act is being
reproduced below:
“7. Maintenance of cows, etc-
(1) Any person may surrender his cow, bull or bullock
to a Goshala or an institution which shall accept such
cow, bull or bullock according to the availability of
accommodation. Any cow, bull or bullock so
surrendered shall not be returned to such person.
(2) The state Government may make such other
alternative and additional arrangements for taking
care of such cows, bull or bullocks as it may deem
necessary.10
(3) Any Goshala or any institution may receive any
cow, bull or bullock for custody from police or any
other person which may be released to the owner on
such terms and conditions and in such manner and on
payment of such charges as may be prescribed.”
19.Submission at bar is that old or infirm cows become liability
as it has become difficult for owners to afford the fodder for
them, that is why either cattle is left unattended, abandoned
or sold for petty amount, willingly or knowingly sending
them to slaughter houses. More so because Goshalas are
reluctant to take such cows quoting scarcity of fund/space.
20.Sri Anoop Yadav, Director Mandi Parishad has stated that he
would release the requisite fund for Goshala on the proposal
made by Department of Animal Husbandry subject to
completion of certain formalities like utility certificate etc.
21.Mandi Parishad is giving funds for maintenance of
Goshalas. It is competent to put such conditions as are
deemed by Board to be proper and to authorize someone to
oversee whether fund is being properly utilized or not and
that cows are also placed in a good condition. Such
Goshalas would not refuse entry to any cow or its progeny
whether animal is old, infirm or non-milching. Mandi
Parishad would be justified in withholding the funds if it is
found that either Goshala are refusing to take above
mentioned animals or misusing the fund, apart from taking
such other penal actions as may be permissible under law.
22.Director, Mandi Parishad states that if necessary, resolution
in this regard may be passed in its next meeting.
23.Submission that old, ill, infirm or non-milching cows can be
slaughtered, does not appear to be correct and Section 11 of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 does not11
come in contradiction to U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter
Act, 1955, an special enactment for State.
24.It is settled that cow and her progeny constitute the
backbone of Indian agriculture and economy. The increasing
adoption of non-conventional energy sources like Bio-gas
plants justify the need for bulls and bullocks to live their full
life in spite of their having ceased to be useful for the
purpose of breeding and draught. Thus, protection of
cow/progeny is needed in the interest of Nation's economy.
Majority of the population is engaged in farming within
which a substantial proportion belong to small and marginal
farmers category. Protection of cow/progeny will help them
in carrying out their several agricultural operations and
related activities smoothly and conveniently. Organic
manure would help in controlling pests and acidification of
land apart from resuscitating and stimulating the
environment as a whole. Moreover, cattle who have served
the owner throughout its life cannot be left unattended for
slaughter by the owner. (State of Gujrat Vs. Mirzapur
Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and others) (supra).
25.This Court is approaching these matters strictly from the
point of view of administration of justice, which
contemplates that a law enacted validly should be enforced
in toto. U.P. Act places a total ban on slaughtering.
However, the problem of farmers who are unable to feed
cows etc. is equally important to visualize.
26.The contention that it has become difficult for peasants to
sustain cows breeding and rearing due to high prices of
fodder, needs a serious consideration. Booking violators
under the Act and punishing them will not help the situation.
Instead of treating symptoms, effort should be to cure the12
disease itself.
27.It was submitted at the bar that cow urine, having medicinal
value, is selling in packed bottles. Similarly, cow dung
which is said to be used for hygienic purpose in the houses,
is capable of producing bio-gas and fuel gas which comes
cheaper than the LPG. Cow dung is invariably used to
prepare manures obviating the need of chemicals/fertilizers.
28.Submission of Registrar, Goshala Ayog is that cows may be
developed as assets instead of liability. Reference was made
by Registrar to Goshalas maintained at Kanpur, Hardwar
etc. where rearing of cows and bullocks has become
profitable. It was suggested that Goshala Ayog will develop
a mechanism whereunder cow rearing be made profitable
and owner does not have to sell them because of growing
expenditure in maintaining them. Unless cow rearing is
made a profitable venture and cows/progeny become, an
asset, violation of Act would remain unabated
notwithstanding any amount of policing.
29.Uttar Pradesh Goshala Ayog has been constituted under the
Uttar Pradesh Go-Sewa Ayog Adhiniyam, 1999. This is
statutory Commission. Under Section 11 of the Adhiniyam,
functions and powers of Ayog have been prescribed.
Relevant Clauses of Section 11 are being reproduced below:
“(ii) work for the welfare of cow in the State;
(iii) work for the scientific use of drug and urine of
cow so as to enhance their utility in the sphere of
agriculture including soil fertility and domestic use;
(iv) work for promotion of and assistance of Goshalas;
(v) activate defunct Goshalas;
(vi) in addition to, and not in derogation of, of
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Goshala Adhiniyam, 1964
assist in the working and functioning of the Goshalas,13
established and run by the voluntary organization, for
the purposes of providing financial assistance, training
in the field of scientific rearing of various breeds of
cows as also for the proper utilization of drug and
urine of the cow for agriculture and domestic use,
including propagation and use of bio-gas plant based
on dung of cow;
(vii) exercise supervision over Goshalas to check
malafide diversion of funds provided by the Ayog or
the Government and the property belonging to the
Goshalas and other voluntary organization and bring to
the notice of the Government specific instances for
appropriate action;
(x) educate, campaign and make people aware about
the economic benefits which can be derived out of
cow;
(xiv) promote Schemes to encourage use of organic
manure and recommend to Government suitable
measure including incentive Schemes for use of dung
or urine of cow as organic manure and pesticides by
farmers to minimize the use of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides and encourage manufacturing and use of
recently developed bullock driven agricultural
implements and carts;
(xvi) take into custody the abandoned, stray, rescued,
confiscated or seized cows for the concerned local
bodies, other competent authority or courts after due
authorization in accordance with law for the time
being enforced and maintain them or get them
maintained properly;”
30.It is, thus, apparent that Goshala Ayog has been obligated to
develop a mechanism where cow dung and cow urine are
put to a profitable use.
31.Moreover, State Government needs to be reminded of its
duty envisaged under Section 7(2) of the U.P. Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act. If adequate alternative and additional
arrangements are made for taking care of
unattended/abandoned cows, bulls and bullocks e.g. setting
up Goshalas/Cow Shelters in sufficient numbers then alone14
purpose of the Act can be achieved.
32.Here comes the duty of State Government to make
alternative and additional arrangements like setting up
Goshalas/cow shelters in adequate number so as to prevent
them from reaching out on roads, fields and destroying
crops apart from obstructing traffic. Furthermore, cow urine
and cow dung be made profitable so that cattle owners do
not feel any pinch in maintaining them rather they become a
source of income. State Government would do well to set up
substantial number of Goshadan and Goshalas itself or with
the help of NGOs. Mandi Parishad would support them
financially so as to make them sustainable.
33.Goshala Ayog with the help of Animal Husbandry
Department will engage NGOs in order to make cow urine
and cow dung profitable. Enactment of law without making
mechanism for its observance would remain a futile
exercise.
34.Court in these proceeding is refraining from issuing any
direction to State in this regard and matter is left to the
wisdom of State Government, Mandi Parishad, Department
of Animal Husbandry, Goshala Ayog and its officers.
35.There is no reason why the menace of cow slaughtering
would not remain unaddressed if State Government and
Goshala Ayog perform their duties prescribed under Section
7(2) of U.P. Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of U.P. GoSewa
Adhiniyam, 1999. Court is not unmindful of the
difficulty likely to be faced in taking up all the steps
immediately. Registrar of Go-Sewa Ayog assures to take up
task in phased manner.
36.Goshala Ayog should prepare a plan at micro and macro15
level to help the cow owners so that cow dung or cow urine
is utilized and marketed making it a profitable job. These
are the issues to be better addressed by the Goshala Ayog
and Department of Animal Husbandry.
37.It is hoped that the officers who have appeared in the Court
and have given assurance, would galvanize the machinery
and implement the suggestions in right spirit.
38.So far as cows and cattle roaming on roads are concerned, it
is duty of Nagar Nigam and Police to remove them and to
ensure that no cows or animals come on road creating
obstruction to traffic and threat to life.
39.Secretary, Nagar Vikas, State of U.P. is directed to issue
necessary instructions in this regard to Nagar
Ayukts/Executive Officers of local bodies. If animals are
spotted on city roads and not removed quickly, proper action
may be contemplated. Superintendents of Police are directed
to extend necessary assistance to the Municipal
Boards/Municipal Corporations in carrying out the above
directions.
40.Cattle owners cannot be seen withholding their hands, to
leave the cattle on road surviving on water of drains/sewer
and garbage which is definitely a cruelty. As such, owners of
such animals should be prosecuted under the provisions of
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Act
and Sections 289, 428, 429 I.P.C. as well. This will deter
cattle owner from frequently leaving animals free on roads,
putting their as well as citizens' life in danger.
41.Cows basking on road/traffic islands and digging polythene
in garbage yard is not a pleasant sight, especially in the
capital city of State. To rid Lucknow of this menace, Nagar16
Ayukta, Lucknow is directed to launch a drive immediately
in the light of discussion made above, with the help of
police force to be provided by S.S.P.
42.So far as prayer for bail is concerned, since offence under
the Act is triable by Magistrate Ist Class and maximum
sentence provided is 7 years imprisonment, this Court finds
all the applicants entitled to bail. In some cases some
Sections of I.P.C. have been added, but major offences
mentioned in the F.I.R. are Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Cow
Slaughter Act.
43.Consequently, all the above-noted bail applications are
allowed.
44.Applicant-Imtiyaz involved in Case Crime No. 121 of 2015,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353,
186, 224, 225 I.P.C., Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of Prevention of
Animal Cruelty Act and Section 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act, Police Station Udaipur, District
Pratapgarh, is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
45.Copy of this order will be sent to Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Secretary, Nagar Vikas,
D.G.P. and Registrar, Go-Sewa Ayog, Uttar Pradesh for
necessary action.
46.Copy of this order will be placed in all the files. Individual
orders are being passed in respective bail applications,
mentioned above.
Order Date :-04/12/2015
No comments:
Post a Comment