all thing are related to law, Lecture notes of Law

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/2019 Rajouri Garden PS dated: 18/12/2019 U/S 11,59,60 PCA IN THE MATTER OF: StateofDelhi nee PETITIONER VERSUS KYZ eee ACCUSED AND Peta India (Animal Welfare Organization) - AWO through its authorized representative = sence eens 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: 1. That the applicant Peta India is an organization engaged in animal welfare as a form of Animal Welfare. 2. That the applicant is recognized by the Animal Welfare Board of India. (ANNEXURE-1) 3. 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) 4. 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 10. 11. 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. 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 28. 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 30. 29. who fail to discharge their duties to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act.” That it would be most relevant to quote an order passed by the Hon’ble Chandigarh High Court, in case of- Sharad Sharma V State of Haryana CRM-M-5092-2018, and Mohd. Arif V State of Haryana CRM-M-8950-2016 where the Hon’ble Chandigarh high Court rejected the application of the accused for custody of animals and the animal shelter was preferred as custodian of the animals during pendency of litigation. (ANNEXURE- 6 & 7) That further, any release of animals to the accused is against the spirit, form and nature of the existing state and central laws aiming to curb cruelty that is meted to animals by the negligence of the accused, as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Animal Welfare Board of India. (ANNEXURE 8 & 9) In the case of People for Animals v. Md. Mohazzim, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9508, decided on 15.05.2015 Court observed that the birds are exported illegally in foreign countries without availability of proper food, water, medical aid and other basic amenities required as per law. The Court noted that nobody is caring as to whether they are inflicting cruelty on birds despite of settled law that birds have a fundamental right to fly and cannot be caged and should be set free in the sky. The Court added that “running the trade of birds is violation of the right of birds and they deserve sympathy”. In case of Laxmi the Elephant and Animal Rights in India a bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde shot down the mahout's habeas corpus plea saying he had no document to show proof of ownership or his legal right of possession. The court said if the elephant was now with the government authorities, the petitioner will have to adduce some legitimate documents to get back the custody of Laxmi. With his plea not getting entertained, advocate Wills Mathews, appearing for the mahout, opted to withdraw the petition saying he would rather go to the high court. Saddam, the former mahout of 47-year-old Laxmi, had stated in his petition that he and his family had a strong emotional bond with the elephant. Laxmi was with the family for around 10 years before she was taken away by forest department officials and the top court should now reunite them. According to his petition, Laxmi was not being kept well in the rehabilitation centre at Haryana and that the elephant would eat and drink fine only when Saddam is around her. The plea cited the Supreme Court's judgment in 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