IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,

BARSHI, AT SOLAPUR

INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IN
Criminal Misc. Application No. Of 2023
IN
FIR No. 359/ 2023

Shri. Navkar Jain Seva Tirth )

Opp. Chandak Petrol, Kurkudwadi road )
Tal- Barshi, Dist- Solapur )
Maharashtra )
Reg No: F 20485 )
Through its authorized representative )
Shri. D hankumar Patva , Age: …. Years ) …Intervener

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

) ...Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, )
At the instance of Barshi Sahar Police Station, )
Dist: Solapur, Maharashtra ) ...Respondents

INTERVENTION APPLICATION

May it please your Honour:

1. The Intervener is a duly registered trust dedicated to the cause of animal

welfare amongst other animal welfare activities, The Intervenor works in
tandem with district and state level authorities across to save the animal
wealth of the nation. The Intervenor works with different law enforcement
agencies for the rescue, care, treatment and rehabilitation of animals under
the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and various
state level animal welfare legislations. The Intervenor mainly take care of old,
infirm, dumb and sick animals throughout the country. The Intervenor having
dedicated team of doctors and animal lovers / volunteers who throughout the
country take care of such animals. The Intervenor has received Certificate of
Recognition from the ‘Animal Welfare Board of India’ for its dedicated work
towards animal welfare constituted by “The Ministry of Environment, Forests
and Climate Change”, Govt. of India.
2. On 02.05.2023, the Barshi Sahar Police Station, lodged FIR no. 359 of 2023
under section 3, 11 (1)(a)(f)(h)(i)(k) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1960, section 5a, 5b, 6, 9 of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act,
1976, section 47, 54, 56 of transport of Animal Rules, 1976 and section 119
of Maharashtra Police Act against the accused and seized 11 bullocks which
were factually dumped with rope from legs to nose in Tata Eicher vehicle
bearing no. MH 14 GU 8479 without any arrangement of water, food and
medical aid for the purpose of illegal slaughtering.

3. The Police rescued and seized 11 bullocks and then Police handed over the
custody of the said Cattle to the applicant Gaushala for preservation and care.
The cattle were in extreme weak and miserable conditions when the same
were given to Gaushala.

4. That the accused admitted that the cattle were transporting for slaughtering at
Dharashiv. The animals were in badly cramped condition in the vehicle that
they were not able to even move.

5. The involvement of present applicant can’t be over ruled, he must be added as

accused in the FIR. In past the applicant has committed / escorted various
cattle loaded vehicles to reach its destination.

6. The Intervener states that the instant application is also taken out under the
provisions of Rule 3, 4 and 5 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care &
Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.

7. As per Rule 3 (b) the Magistrate may direct the animal to be housed at an
infirmary, Pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organization or Gaushala
during the pendency of the litigation.

8. As per Rule 4 and 5 the Accused / owners / consigner/ consignee / transporter

are liable to pay the amount of maintenance towards medicine, fodder, care
etc. of all 11 bullocks till pendency of the litigation.

For the convenience of the Hon’ble Court, the provisions of Rule 3, 4 and 5
of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care & Maintenance of Case
Property Animals) Rules, 2017 have been reproduced as under:

3. Custody of animals pending litigation.—

When an animal has been seized under the provision of the Act or the
rules made there under—
(a) the authority seizing the animal shall ensure health inspection,
identification and marking such animal, through the jurisdictional
veterinary officer deployed at Government Veterinary Hospital of the
area and marking may be done by ear tagging or by chipping or by any
less irksome advance technology but marking by hot branding, cold
branding and other injurious marking shall be prohibited;
 (b) the magistrate may direct the animal to be housed at an infirmary,
pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala during
the pendency of the litigation.

4. Cost of care and keeping of animal pending litigation.—

(1) The State Board shall within three months from the date of
commencement of these rules and thereafter on the 1st day of April
every year, specify the cost of transport, maintenance and treatment per
day for every species of animal that is commonly seized in the State.

(2) The magistrate shall use the rates specified by the State Board as
the minimum specified rates for transport, maintenance and treatment
of the seized animals under sub-section (4) of section 35 of the Act.

(3) In case the animal under consideration is not on the rate sheet specified
by the State Board, the magistrate shall fix the cost of transport,
treatment and maintenance of the animal based on the input provided
by the jurisdictional veterinary officer.

5. Execution of bond.—

(1) The magistrate when handing over the custody of animal to an

infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or
Gaushala shall determine an amount which is sufficient to cover all
reasonable cost incurred and anticipated to be incurred for transport,
maintenance and treatment of the animal based on the input provided
by the jurisdictional veterinary officer and shall direct the accused and
the owner to execute a bond of the determined value with sureties
within three days and if the accused and owner do not execute the
bond, the animal shall be forfeited to infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA,
Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala.

(2) The infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or

Gaushala having the custody of the animal may draw on from the bond
on a fortnightly basis the actual reasonable cost incurred in caring for
the animal from the date it received custody till the date of final
disposal of the animal.

(3) The magistrate shall call for the accused and the owner to execute
additional bond with sureties once eighty per cent. of the initial bond
amount has been exhausted as cost for caring for the animal.

(4) Where a vehicle has been involved in an offence, the magistrate shall
direct that the vehicle be held as a security.

(5) 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 of animals.
 (6) In cases where a body corporate owns the animal, the Chief Executive
Officer, President or highest-ranking employee of the body corporate, the
body corporate and the accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the
cost of transport, treatment and care of the animal.

(7) In cases where the Government owns the animal, the Head of the
Department and the accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the
cost of transport, treatment and care of the animal.

(8) If the owner and the accused do not have the means to furnish the bond,
the magistrate shall direct the local authority to undertake the costs
involved and recover the same as arrears of land revenue.

9. The Intervener states that not complying Rule 3 (a) of Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 as
soon as the animals are seized is contrary to the law as well as contrary to the
guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Bhartiya Govansh
Rakshan Sanvardhan Parishad Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal
Application No.1054/2019 in vide order dated 11.10.2019 has held that:-

"26. The Intervenor has raised various issues in the present application. The
Intervenor is seeking mandatory directions to the State Government and Municipal
Corporation / Municipal Councils to follow the procedure before seizure and after
seizure taking recourse to Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. The Intervenor also wants to
know what procedure is being followed by the concern Authorities before seizure
and after seizure of the animals. According to the Intervenor whenever the animals
are in the custody, health inspection is necessary. An identification and marking of
the animals should be done in the proper manner, known to the relevant procedure
and rules. The Intervenor has also raised concern about non adherence of rules 3
and 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case
Property Animals) Rules, 2016. The Intervenor has also raised concern about the
manner in which animal are returned to the owner or given to the contractor
without following proper procedure. In substance Intervenor seeks mandatory
directions to the State Government and Respondent Authorities to follow the
mandate of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. so also provisions of Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2016 and
other procedure prescribed under the aforesaid rules. In my opinion, the State
Government so also other authorities who are dealing with the seizure of animals
are expected and obliged to follow the mandate of aforesaid provisions and
therefore no mandatory directions are necessary. It is the statutory obligation of
the respondent authorities to strictly adhere to the aforesaid provisions. There are
various reported judgments of the Supreme Court and this High Court which are
relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor. It needs no
mention that, law laid down in the said judgments and directions issued are
binding to all concern."

10. The Intervener respectfully states that until and unless the accused or owner of
the animals are found not guilty of all charges or acquitted till then the custody
of the animals cannot be returned to them. Nowhere in the rule is the provision
 that pending litigation the custody of animals can be given to accused or the
owner. On the contrary, conjoint reading of Rule 3, 4, 5 and 6 it is crystal clear
that pending litigation the custody of animals will be with a Gaushala and the
accused / owner will pay for their maintenance and if any vehicle is involved
then the vehicle to be held as a security. For convenience, the Rule 8 of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property
Animals) Rules, 2017 is reproduced herein below:

8. Status of animal upon disposal of litigation.—

(1) If the accused is convicted, or pleads guilty, the magistrate shall deprive
him of the ownership of animal and forfeit the seized animal to the
infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala
already having custody for proper adoption or other disposition. 
(2) If the accused is found not guilty of all charges, the seized animal
shall be returned to the accused or owner of the animal and the unused
portion of any bond amount executed shall be returned to the person who
executed the bond.

11. The owner can also be made as an accused in offence if he has failed to
exercise reasonable care and supervision with a view to the prevention of such
offence. Section 11 (2) has been reproduced herein below:

11 (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), an owner shall be deemed to have
committed an offence if he has failed to exercise reasonable care and
supervision with a view to the prevention of such offence: Provided that
where an owner is convicted of permitting cruelty by reason only of having
failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to
imprisonment without the option of a fine.

12. The Intervener states that the alleged animal owner i.e., Intervenor to be added
as accused in the case since his involvement cannot be ruled out.

13. Article 51 (a) (g) of The Indian Constitution states that it is the fundamental
duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion towards
living creatures.

14. As per Rule 125E of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 there should be a
permanent partition in a truck duly issued with special license so that each
animal which are subject for transportation stands individually in that specially
designed partition. While transporting the seized animal, no such vehicle was
used and therefore the same was also in violation of Rule 125 E of C.M.V
Rules, 1989.

15. Transportation Rules were not followed as to the minimum partitioned space
to be accorded to animal being transported. It is also to be noted that Rule 65
 to 75, 96 to 98 of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978 was also not followed
while transporting these animals. It is compulsory to provide water, food and
first aid kit beside other arrangements while transporting the animals, these
rules were also overlooked and Rule 65 to 75 and Rule 96 to 98 have not been
applied in the FIR for the reason best known to the police.

16. The Accused/ owners/ consigner/ consignee have not taken any care and / or
precaution for safeguarding the life of the animals and brutal cruelty has been
committed by them upon the innocent animals. The Hon'ble apex court and
various High Courts on many occasions have denied the ownership / custody
of the animals to such owners / accused who were accused of illegal slaughter
of the animals.

17. The Intervener states that as per the Circular dated 03/05/2018 issued by
Maharashtra Animal Welfare Board the and as per the Circular dated
02/07/2019 issued by ‘Animal Welfare Board of India’ which has fixed the
amount of daily maintenance at as sum of Rs.200 per day per Cattle. Till today
the Intervenor incurring all the expenses towards fodder, medical etc. on cattle
form his own pocket. The Intervenor is a private trust and if the cost of
expenditure is not paid then the Intervenor will suffer financially.

18. If the custody and the amount of maintenance is not granted then grave and
irreparable loss will be caused to the Intervener and no such organization /
Gaushala / Animal Welfare Centre will come forward in future. However, the
prime object of the Intervener organization is the custody of the animals and
not the maintenance, the amount of maintenance will only help the Intervener
Gaushala to take better care and feed better quality food and medicine to the
said animals.

It is therefore respectfully prayed as under:

a. That this Hon’ble court be please to allow the present application and reject the
Cri. Misc. Application ___ of 2023 filed by the applicant as prayer.

b. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to comply with the
mandatory provision of Rule 3 (a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care &
Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017;

c. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the animal owners to pay requisite
amount incurred on cattle towards daily maintenance to Intervenor Gaushala as
per consonance with the Circular dated 03/05/2018 issued by Maharashtra
Animal Welfare Board the and as per the Circular dated 02/ 07/ 2019 issued by
‘Animal Welfare Board of India’ which has fixed the amount of daily
maintenance at as sum of Rs.200 per day per Cattle;
d. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct vehicle owners to execute Bond as
per Rule 5 (1) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of
Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017;

e. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold that in the event if the vehicle
owners fails to execute the bond and / or pay the amount to the Gaushala if
ordered by this Hon’ble Court within 3 days then in that case all the 11
bullocks to be forfeited to the Intervenor Gaushala as per Rule 5 (1) of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property
Animals) Rules, 2017;

f. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold that in the event if the accused /
animal owners/ vehicle owner / consigner/ consignee / transporter fails to
execute the bond and / or pay the amount to the Intervenor Gaushala as ordered
by this Hon’ble Court within 3 days then in that case the local authority be
directed to undertake the costs involved and recover the same as arrears of land
by auctioning the vehicle no. MH 14 GU 8479 of accused / animal owners /
transporter / consigner/ consignee as per Rule 5 (8) of Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017;

g. Any further order as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court;

Place: Barshi
Date: /06/2023 Advocate for Intervener

VERIFICATION
 I, Dhankumar Patva, Age: __ Years having Gaushala address at Opp.
Chandak Petrol Pump, Kurkurwadi road, Barshi, Solapur do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare that whatever is stated in the foregoing
paragraphs is true and I believe the same to be correct as per the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly affirmed at Barshi }

Dated this June, 2023 }

Explained and identified by me, Deponent

Advocate for Intervener

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,

 BARSHI, AT SOLAPUR

INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IN
Criminal Misc. Application No. Of 2023
IN
FIR No. 359/ 2023

Shri. Navkar Jain Seva Tirth   … Intervenor

In the matter between

____________________ …Applicant
Vs

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

Affidavit In Support Of Application

I, Dhankumar Patva, Age: __ Years having Gaushala address at
Opp. Chandak Petrol Pump, Kurkurwadi road, Barshi, Solapur,
Maharashtra State, India- do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
under:

1. I say that the Application is filed by me and I am well versed and

acquainted with the facts of the case and I am able to depose the same.

2. I say that I repeat, reiterate, confirm and adopt all that is stated in the

Application as if the same forms part and parcel of this present Affidavit.

3. I say that whatever written herein above are correct to the best of my

knowledge and I believe the same to be true.

Explained and identified by me,

Before me,

Advocate for Applicant

 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
BARSHI, AT SOLAPUR

INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IN
Criminal Misc. Application No. Of 2023
IN
FIR No. 359/ 2023

Shri. Navkar Jain Seva Tirth   … Intervenor

In the matter between

____________________ …Applicant
Vs

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

VAKALATNAMA
I, Dhankumar Patva, do hereby authorize and nominate and
appoint __________________________________ my Advocate in
the above case to plead, act, argue and file applications, affidavit
and other necessary things on my behalf.
Dated this of June, 2023
Accepted
Applicant

Advocate for the Applicant

_______________________
_______________________
________________________