Download all thing are related to law and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
IN THE COURT OF SH.ABC Judge_ Ld. __(JMIC) ____(District)____, New Delhi Application Arising out of FIR No: ABC/ Rajouri Garden PS dated: 18/12/ U/S 11,59,60 PCA IN THE MATTER OF: State of Delhi ………PETITIONER VERSUS XYZ ……….ACCUSED AND Peta India (Animal Welfare Organization) - AWO through its authorized representative ………..THIRD PARTY APPLICANT APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULES 3(b) PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF CASE PROPERTY ANIMALS) RULES, 2017 The third-party informant/ applicant most respectfully submits:
- That the applicant Peta India is an organization engaged in animal welfare as a form of Animal Welfare.
- That the applicant is recognized by the Animal Welfare Board of India. ( ANNEXURE-1)
- That ________ aged 50 years, S/o ___________, R/o _________________, a bona fide citizen of the country and an authorized representative of ____________ is authorized to represent the applicant in the present matter. A copy of the authorization letter is annexed herewith as ( ANNEXURE-2)
- The present application is being filed on behalf of the applicant who is an authorized representative of the abovementioned organization. The applicant has statutory locus standi in the present case as under Rule 3(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property) Rules, 2017 and as a bonafide intervener
engaged in voluntary animal welfare service, as per Bal Gangadhar Tripathi & Anr V. State of UP & Anr. (Cr. Misc. Case 26 of 1996). Copies of the said rules and judgement are annexed herewith as “ANNEXURE- 3” and “ANNEXURE- 4”.
- That the applicant received custody on Zimmenama of 181 on 18.12.2019, under FIR No ABC - at Rajouri Garden PS under the cruel and illegal transportation of 187 Cows/Buffaloes/ Sheeps/goats (hereinafter to be refered as “animals”), out of which 6 were found dead thereby the total number to 187 animals which were stuffed in one vehicle bearing registration no __________.
- That as per brief facts of the case, the accused had mercilessly overloaded these animals cruelly and were transporting them in the unauthorized vehicle in flagerant violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
- That under the said act Under the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, under Rules 75 the accused loaded 187 animals mercilessly thereby exceeded the capacity of six animals. Further the accused was not carrying proper documents including veterinary certificate and transportation Certificate which is mandatory for transport of animals.
- That due to absence of a district facility, gaushala, or pinjrapole, the custody of the animals were given to the Applicant at its Animal shelter in _____________. The shelter is managed by the applicant.
- That upon the perusal of bare records it can be seen that the accused persons did not possess the requisite Veterinary certificate and transportation Certificate as mandate by the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978 which are essential ingredients for the legal transportation of any animal from one place to another. In the absence of these compliance documents, the intention and purpose of such transportation becomes highly questionable in character and a threat to the safe maintenance of animals during the pendency of litigation in the event of them being handed over to the accused which may expose them to further cruelty thereby violation the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 10. That the animals were found in cruel condition, being transported for long hours in a huddles manner, suffering from prolonged suffocation for want of space. (Photographs Available)
- That the seized transporting vehicle did not measures sufficiently in height, length or breadth for transportation of animals and was not fit for transport of animals as provided under Rule 125E of the Central motor Vehicle Rules, 1989
- That in pursuance of the above order, the applicant has come to this court for interim custody of the animals who are also a case property and as per Rule 3(b), and may be housed at any animal shelter, pinjrapole, gaushala as per the said rules.
- That in the past, the applicant have taken custody of affected animals during cruelty and housed them during the pendency of litigation.
- That while transporting the animals the accused and owner have violated Section 3, 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 428, 429 of the Indian Penal Code.
- That the owner specifically violated Section 11(a) which states that if a person being the owner allows its animals as the camels were over ridden and beaten and Section 11(b) which mentions that the owner will not use its animals for purpose where they are exposed to injuries or harmful diseases.
- It is pertinent to mention the fact that none of the rules have been complied and the accused and the owner has acted in negligence and complete ignorance of the law, thereby inflicting cruelty to the animal under prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
- That this act of the accused has raised sufficient and reasonable doubt and suspicion that the animals were being taken for the purpose of slaughter.
- That in view of law laid down in S tate Vs Mustakeem & Ors, Criminal Appeal Nos. 283-287 of 2002 SC, the release of animals to the accused is banned. The Hon’ble apex court set aside the order of the Hon’ble high Court for release of animals in favour of the owner and the animals were ordered to be kept in the Gaushala during the pendency of trial. (Annexure-5)
- That the accused transporter has acted in contravention of the said Rules and prima facie raised sufficient and reasonable doubt and suspicion as to his motive and intent behind transporting the animals without adherence to existing State and Central Acts and the said Rules. 27. That it is the constitutional duty of every citizen to ensure the well being of all animals, Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 create constitutional and legal duty on everyone to ensure the well being of animals and to prevent infliction upon such animals of unnecessary pain or suffering. Article 51A(g) of the constitution reads as follows: “ It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures." Section3 of the P.C. Act provides that it shall be the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.”
- In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. reported in (2014) 7 SCC 547 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 72 of the judgment observed as follows:- RIGHT TO LIFE: Para 72. Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as animals are concerned, in our view, “life” means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human-beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity. Animals well-being and welfare have been statutorily recognized under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution. Right to get food, shelter is also a guaranteed right under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the Rules framed thereunder, especially when they are domesticated. The right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to animals as well. The right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-ridden, over- loaded is also a right recognized by Section 11 read with Section 3 of the PCA Act. Animals also have a right against human beings not to be tortured and against infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. Penalty for violation of those rights are insignificant, since laws are made by humans. Punishment prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, hence being violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act, hence the necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers
Jallikattu case to assert that even animals have right to live with dignity and Laxmi must come back to Saddam in respect of her rights. Laxmi was traced in Delhi after a hunt by the forest department officials, who had alleged that Saddam assaulted them when they went to rescue her. In the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari vs Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors. The hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Special Criminal Application No. 1387 of 2008 is accepted in part by directing the respondent No. 8 to hand over custody of goats and sheep seized in the instant case to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, who are owners thereof, in such proportion as the original number of seized animals bears to the number of surviving animals, on each of them depositing a sum of rupees fifty thousand with the trial court and each furnishing two sureties of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 be handed over custody of goats and sheep in the presence of Police Officer in-charge of the Police Station at Patan. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are directed to see that no cruelty is meted out to the surviving animals and submit an undertaking to that effect to the trial court within a period of two weeks from today. Subject to abovementioned directions regarding handing over interim custody of goats and sheep, the appeal is allowed. In the case of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Union of India PETA was of the view that protecting the welfare of animals is a stated constitutional goal embodied in Article 51A (g) and is a matter of legislative policy under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. PETA’s main allegation and the contention which was put forth by it was that there was an utter violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and there was also a violation of the provisions of the Performing Animals Registration Rules, 2001, and these violations were made by the makers of the film, “Taj Mahal” during the shoot of the film. PETA was of the view that a film which wishes to use an animal needs to obtain a no- objection certificate from the Animal Welfare Board of India as it is deemed to regarded as a pre-requisite before the Central Board of Censorship grants the certificate of censorship to the particular movie. The High Court, in this case, ruled in favor of PETA and held that for any movie which aims or wishes to use an animal, it is a pre-requisite which is of utmost importance and needs to followed by every movie, that is, they firstly need to obtain a certificate from the Animal Welfare Board
of India, which contains the various provisions of the Performing Animals Registration Rules, 2001. The Welfare Board would check whether the film which aims to use an animal in the course of its shooting, is not subjecting the animal to cruelty and is taking proper care of the animal. The Animal Welfare Board would then scrutinize whether the makers of the particular film are adhering to all the provisions as per laid down under the various sections of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 and at the same time whether they are adhering and following the various provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
31. That due to absence of any state authority of shelter, to prevent further ill treatment and to ensure safe custody of the seized animals during the pendency of litigation, the applicant has humbly approached this Hon’ble Court with the bonafide intention of maintaining the animals with good care and condition. PRAYER It is therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court: 1. To exercise the power conferred on it by the strict provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (care and maintenance of case property animals) Rules, 2017 and direct the interim custody of animals to the applicant or any SPCA, Gaushala, Pinjrapole. 2. To pass all necessary orders as it may deem fit under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 3. To kindly issue Dasti order in this application. PLACE: (APPLICANT THROUGH ADVOCATE) DATE:
