The Bombay High Court has said that it would be the responsibility of the owner of a vehicle from which animals were seized under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, to pay the cost of transport, treatment and care of animals till the trial is concluded.
Justice Prakash D Naik said being merely the owner of the vehicle used as medium does not absolve someone from the responsibility to pay the amount towards maintenance and health inspection of animals in accordance with Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules.
“Although the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, he cannot be absolved of his responsibility to pay the amount towards maintenance and health inspection of animals in accordance with rules. As stated above the petitioner can be directed to pay the amount towards maintenance, health inspection and future amount of Rs 200 per day per animal being the owner of the vehicle,” the Court said.
In the above case where the animals and the vehicle were seized pursuant to a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Animals Act and Section 192-A of Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that 23 buffaloes were being transported illegally to Mumbai.
The buffaloes were rescued by the police and handed over to a gaushala for preservation and care.
The petitioner went to the High Court to challenge an order directing which gave him directions to pay Rs.96,625 towards maintenance and health inspection of the animals until May 13, 2022 and an amount of Rs 200 per day per animal till the conclusion of trial.
The Magistrate Court passed the order and later the same was upheld by the Sessions Court.
Advocate Atharva Dandekar, who represented the petitioner, said the order by the Magistrate to pay the amount of maintenance was illegal.
He added that the vehicle of the petitioner was returned to him as well as he was not involved in the entire business, he cannot be compelled to pay maintenance.
Additional Public Prosecutor AR Patil for the State said that the order is legal as the truck was intercepted and was found to be carrying the transport illegally and in a cruel manner.
The ADP also added that under Rule 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) in cases of offences relating to transport of animals, the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents and any other parties involved shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of animals.
The High Court noted that Rule 5 of the Act was taken into consideration by the Sessions Judge, who said that the petitioner, being owner of the truck, was jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of animals.
Therefore, it found no merit in the petitioner’s contentions and dismissed the petition.