The Gujarat high court has said that the power of a magistrate hearing a case under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCAA) 1960, to send the affected animals to a cattle pound, does not violate the constitutional right to practice any profession or trade. The provisions of the act which give a magistrate this power are clearly connected to the aim of the act, which is to prevent unnecessary pain of suffering to animals, the court said.
The bench comprising chief justice SJ Mukhopadhya and Justice JB Pardiwala made these observations while hearing, on August 8, a petition moved by one Samandkhan Meerakhan who had challenged the process of sending cattle to panjarapoles (cattle pound).
Samandkhan had filed a petition as his 1000 goats and sheep had died in a panjarapole in Vapi. He has a business of goats and sheep and was transporting the animals in three different trucks from Rajasthan to Mumbai.
The Vapi police had intercepted the trucks on November 15 last year and lodged a criminal case under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act-1960. After that the local magistrate had ordered the seized goats and sheep to be sent to the local panjarapole.
Mukul Sinha, counsel for the petitioner, said that the Act deals with animals in general. It includes sheep and goats and such animals which are legitimate articles of trade and business, and also those animals which are not articles of trade.
Further, the provision of the Act is arbitrary in that it gives almost unrestricted, unfettered and unconditional custody of legitimate livestock to panjrapoles, Sinha said. It fixes no responsibility on panjrapoles and no provision has been made for any form of compensation in the case of death or destruction of livestock during pendency of a case, Sinha told the court.
Government pleader and counsel for Panjrapole Virat Popat, PK Jani, said that the magistrate had the authority to send cattle to an infirmary or panjrapole. "But as this case was a case of cruelty to animals, the animals were sent to the panjrapole," he said. He further argued that just because a person has the right to trade, he does not get the licence to treat animals with cruelty.
