Procedure: Sample collection: Assistant Director has no power to seize the sample of meat under Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle preservation Act 1964

Facts

Complaint about illegal storage of large quantity of meat of cow

3. The appellant, who is claiming to be Honorary Animal Welfare Officer complained to the fifth respondent-Dr. Omkar Patil, Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department about illegal storage of a large quantity of meat of cow in a godown of the first to third respondents.

FIR was quashed

4. Initially, while registering the First Information Report, the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the IPC’) were applied and later on, the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 (for short ‘the 1964 Act’) and, in particular, Sections 4 and 5 thereof were added. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’) has quashed the First Information Report.

Challenge against the quash order

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this was a case where huge quantity of meat of cow was found in the custody of the first to third respondents. He pointed out that even before the investigation could proceed, that the High Court has interjected. He submitted that there is overwhelming prima facie evidence on record to show that the meat found in the custody of the first to third respondents was a meat of cow and, therefore, prima facie, the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1964 Act were attracted.

Consideration

Collection of sample meat by Assistant Director of Veterinary Dept

7. The entire prosecution story is premised on the fact that the fifth respondent, who was the Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department, on information received from the appellant, entered the factory premises of the first to third respondents and opened two packets kept in ice and collected a sample of meat from the packets. The sample was put in the thermocol box and packed by putting ice around it. The seized sample was sent for analysis. The panchnama to that effect is of 25.01.2018. Thus, the sample was collected not by a police officer but by the fifth respondent, who was the Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department. Assuming that he was an authorized person, his powers were very limited under Section 10 of the 1964 Act, which read thus: –

“10. Power to enter and inspect.- (1) For the purposes of this Act, the competent authority or any person authorised in this behalf by the competent authority (hereinafter referred to as the “authorised person”) shall have power to enter and inspect any premises where the competent authority or the authorised person has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is likely to be committed.

(2) Every person in occupation of any such premises shall allow the competent authority or the authorised person such access to the premises as may be necessary for the aforesaid purpose and shall answer to the best of his knowledge and belief any questions put to him by the competent authority or by the authorised person.”

Assistant had no power to seize any sample of meat

8. Thus, the power was confined to enter and inspect. Under the 1964 Act, he had no power to seize any sample of meat. What is interesting to note is that, on the same day, there was one more panchnama drawn in presence of an Assistant Sub-Inspector. The said panchnama records that the sample was already collected and has been sent for testing to the expert. It also records that the meat was stored in a cold storage, which was not functioning. Therefore, the seizure of three rooms and meat packets was made. The police officer did not collect any sample for sending it for analysis.

Act of sample collected by the AD was completely illegal

9. The crux of the matter is that the sample of the meat was admittedly collected by the Assistant Director, who had no authority in law to collect the sample. He did not collect the sample after notice to the first to third respondents. Thus, the act of collection of sample by the Assistant Director was completely illegal. It is this sample which was sent for chemical analysis. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution is based on unauthorizedly and illegally collected sample of the meat. Therefore, the High Court was right when it interfered by quashing the First Information Report.

Quash order upheld

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Party

JOSHINE ANTONY ….. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SMT. ASIFA SULTANA & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1046 OF 2024 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.) NO(S). 911 OF 2019) – 2024 INSC 144 – FEBRUARY 20, 2024.

click here to go to direct link

Joshine Antony vs. Smt. Asifa sultana 816_2019_7_19_50636_Judgement_20-Feb-2024

Further study

• NDPS ACT – SEIZED SUBSTANCE IN THE PRESENSE OF GAZETTED OFFICER NOT CERTIFIED BY THE MAGISTRATE HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE
• WHETHER MAGISTRATE CAN COMMIT THE CROSS-CASE TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE OFFENCES TO SESSIONS COURT U/S 323 CR.P.C?
• WHETHER FIRST COMPLAINT IS MAINTAINABLE, IF SECOND COMPLAINT FOR DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES BASED ON COMPROMISE DEED FILED?
• SCOPE OF SECTION 52A OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985
• DURING A CRIMINAL TRIAL, THE COUNSEL APPOINTED BY THE VICTIM TAKES OVER THE PROSECUTION FROM THE STATE PROSECUTOR. EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS.