Court Affirms Exclusive Custody with Registered Institutions Under Cattle Preservation Act, Overrides General Cr.P.C. Provisions
In a significant decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed the statutory mandate governing the custody of agricultural cattle seized under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that the Act's specific provision for custody of seized cattle overrides the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), specifically Sections 451 and 457, which deal with interim custody of property.
The case, titled "Md. Vasim Qurashi v. State of Chhattisgarh," involved a petition challenging the denial of interim custody of 28 buffaloes seized from the petitioner under allegations of illegal transport for slaughter. The petitioner sought interim custody of the cattle under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the lower courts, citing the specific provisions of the Cattle Preservation Act.
The High Court clarified that Section 7 of the Cattle Preservation Act mandates that seized cattle be placed under the custody of registered institutions such as Goshala or Gorakshan Sansthan until the conclusion of prosecution. This statutory provision impliedly excludes the jurisdiction of criminal courts to grant custody to any individual, including the accused or owners, under the general provisions of the Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized the non-obstante clause in Section 18 of the Act, which gives overriding effect to its provisions over any other law, thereby supporting the legislative intent to prevent illegal slaughter and protect agricultural cattle. The judgment also highlighted that the legislative framework is designed to balance the welfare of cattle with the rights of individuals, ensuring that custody remains with institutions equipped to care for the animals during legal proceedings.
This decision underscores the principle that special legislation prevails over general procedural law, a stance supported by previous judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The ruling has significant implications for the interpretation of statutory mandates, reinforcing the exclusion of general judicial discretion where specific legislative commands are in place.
The case will now proceed as per the directions of the roster bench, following the resolution of the legal question at the heart of the dispute.
Bottom line:-
Interim custody of seized agricultural cattle under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 is exclusively governed by Section 7 of the Act, mandating custody with specified institutions till the conclusion of prosecution, and impliedly excludes jurisdiction under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C.
Statutory provision(s):
Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, Sections 7 and 18; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 451 and 457 (now Sections 497 and 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023); Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 21, and 300A.
Md. Vasim Qurashi v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2945311
