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:

State of Delhi ………PETITIONER

VERSUS
XYZ           ……….ACCUSED

AND
Peta India (Animal Welfare Organization) - AWO
through its authorized representative                   ………..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
 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”.
5. 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 __________.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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)
11. 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
12. That further Rule 96(1) of The Transportation of Animals Rules, 1978, clearly lays
down that “a valid certificate issued by an officer or any person or Animal Welfare
Organization duly recognized and authorized for this purpose by the Animal Welfare
Board of India or the Central Government shall be procured by any person making
transport of any animal before transportation of such animal verifying that all the
relevant Central and State Acts, rules and orders relating to transport of such animals
have been duly complied with and that the animal is not being transported for any
purpose contrary to any provision of any law.” Further, Rule 96(2) of The
Transportation of Animals Rules, 1978, provides that “in the absence of such
certificate, the carrier shall refuse to accept the consignment for transport.” 
13. That Rule 3(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of
Case Property Animals) Rules,2017 lays down that the animals seized under this Act
shall undergo health inspection, identification and marking by the seizing authority.
14. That further the applicant would like to bring the attention o the court to the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animlas (Care and maintenance of case property)
Rules, 2017 , where it is pertinent to mention that Rule 3(b) essentially confers upon
the Learned Magistrate the discretionary power to direct the rescued animals to be
housed at an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organization or Gaushala
during the pendency of the litigation. 
15. That further, it is pertinent to note the Rule5(4) mandates that “the magistrate shall
direct that the vehicle to be held as security.
16. That Rule 5(5) provides that in case of offence 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 for the animals seized.
17. That the purpose of the said Rule is to ensure that the animals rescued from infliction
of various kinds of cruelty are properly treated and cared during the time that the case
is being fought in court. 
18. That in the matter of Bal Gangadhar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. & Ors, decided on :
19.01.1996, the Hon’ble High Court held in para 5 that for the protection of animals
from cruelty, the government efforts are not sufficient and in such matters any
voluntary organisation working for the upkeep of animals can be a party to matters of
animal cruelty.
19. That in pursuance of the above order, the applicant has come to this court for interim
custody of the animals who are also a case property and as per Rule 3(b), and may be
housed at any animal shelter, pinjrapole, gaushala as per the said rules.
20. That in the past, the applicant have taken custody of affected animals during cruelty
and housed them during the pendency of litigation.
21. That while transporting the animals the accused and owner have violated Section 3,
11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 428, 429 of the
Indian Penal Code.
22. That the owner specifically violated Section 11(a) which states that if a person being
the owner allows its animals as the camels were over ridden and beaten and Section
11(b) which mentions that the owner will not use its animals for purpose where they
are exposed to injuries or harmful diseases.
23. It is pertinent to mention the fact that none of the rules have been complied and the
accused and the owner has acted in negligence and complete ignorance of the law,
thereby inflicting cruelty to the animal under prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960.
24. That this act of the accused has raised sufficient and reasonable doubt and suspicion
that the animals were being taken for the purpose of slaughter. 
25. That in view of law laid down in State Vs Mustakeem & Ors, Criminal Appeal
Nos. 283-287 of 2002 SC, the release of animals to the accused is banned. The
Hon’ble apex court set aside the order of the Hon’ble high Court for release of
animals in favour of the owner and the animals were ordered to be kept in the
Gaushala during the pendency of trial. (Annexure-5)
26. That the accused transporter has acted in contravention of the said Rules and prima
facie raised sufficient and reasonable doubt and suspicion as to his motive and intent
behind transporting the animals without adherence to existing State and Central Acts
and the said Rules.
27. That it is the constitutional duty of every citizen to ensure the well being of all
animals, Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 create constitutional and legal duty on everyone to
ensure the well being of animals and to prevent infliction upon such animals of
unnecessary pain or suffering. Article 51A(g) of the constitution reads as follows: “It
shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
 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.” 
28. 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 who fail to discharge their duties to safeguard the statutory
rights of animals under the PCA Act.”
29. 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)
30. 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
 of India, which contains the various provisions of the Performing Animals
Registration Rules, 2001. The Welfare Board would check whether the film which
aims to use an animal in the course of its shooting, is not subjecting the animal to
cruelty and is taking proper care of the animal. The Animal Welfare Board would
then scrutinize whether the makers of the particular film are adhering to all the
provisions as per laid down under the various sections of the Performing Animals
(Registration) Rules, 2001 and at the same time whether they are adhering and
following the various provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

31. That due to absence of any state authority of shelter, to prevent further ill treatment
and to ensure safe custody of the seized animals during the pendency of litigation, the
applicant has humbly approached this Hon’ble Court with the bonafide intention of
maintaining the animals with good care and condition.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court:

1. To exercise the power conferred on it by the strict provisions of Rule 3(b) of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (care and maintenance of case property animals)
Rules, 2017 and direct the interim custody of animals to the applicant or any
SPCA, Gaushala, Pinjrapole.
2. To pass all necessary orders as it may deem fit under the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960.
3. To kindly issue Dasti order in this application.

PLACE: (APPLICANT THROUGH ADVOCATE)

DATE: