Holding

Because buffalo calves are not among the animals prohibited under Section 5(1A), Section 68(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 does not prevent the release of the seized vehicle before six months.

Summary

The appellant’s Eicher truck was seized by police for transporting 28 buffalo calves, and the appellant sought its release under Section 451 of the CrPC. The lower courts rejected the application, invoking Section 68(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011, which bars release of a seized vehicle for six months. The Supreme Court examined whether buffalo calves fall within the prohibited animal categories listed in Section 5(1A) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954. It held that buffalo calves are not among the prohibited animals (cow, calf of a cow, bull, bullock), so the amendment’s restriction does not apply. Consequently, the vehicle could be released before the six‑month period, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside. The appeal was allowed and the truck was directed to be released forthwith.

Issues considered

Does Section 68(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 apply to a vehicle seized for transporting buffalo calves, which are not listed as prohibited animals under Section 5(1A) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954?
Can the seized vehicle be released before six months under Section 451 CrPC when the animal transported does not fall within the prohibited category?
Did the lower courts err in interpreting the amendment provision to deny release of the vehicle?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 451
Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954s. 5(1), s. 5(1A)
Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011s. 68(3), s. 6A(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 279
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 177, s. 184, s. 192
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960s. 11

Subjects

animal preservationseizure of vehiclebuffalo calvesSection 68(3)Section 6A(3)statutory interpretationGujarat lawrelease of seized property

Judgment

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 648

A MULTANI HANIFBHAI KALUBHAI
v.
STATE OF GUJ.ARAT & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 01', 2013
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGQISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 -
ss.68(3) and 6A(3) - Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954
C - s.5(1A) - Truck of appellant .seized by the police for
transporting 28 buffalo calves - Application filed by appellant
uls.451 CrPC for release of the truck - Dismissed on the
ground that as per s. 68(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act, 2011, the truck could not be released
o before the expiry of six months from Uie date of its seizure -
Propriety- Held: Sub-section (3) of s. ~A of the Gujarat Animal
Preservation (Amendment) Act, 201 f stipulates that whenever
any person transports in contravention of provisions of Sub-
section (1), any animal as specified in s.5(1A) of the Gujarat
E Animal Preservation Act, 1954, such vehicle or any
conveyance used in transporting such animal, shall be liable
to be seized by the authority/officer concerned - Sub-section
1A of s.5 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954
stipulates a list of prohibited animals, viz. (a) a cow; (b) the
F calf of a cow, whether male or female and if male, whether
castrated or not; (c) a bull and (d) a bullock - In the case at
hand, the vehicle impounded by the respondents was
transporting 'buffalo calves' which does not fall under the list
of prohibited animals mentioned in sub-section 1A of s.5 -
Thus, s.68(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation
G (Amendment) Act, 2011 could not be invoked in order to deny
the claim of release of the vehicle - In view of the same, it is
not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the police station
in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account

H 648
MULTAN! HANIFBHAI KALUBHAI v. STATE OF 649
GUJARAT & ANR.
of weather conditions - Further, it is of no use to keep the A
seized vehicle in the police station for a long period -
Respondents accordingly directed to release the truck - Penal
Code, 1860 - s.451.
The truck of the appellant was seized by the police
8
for transporting 28 buffalo calves. The appellant filed
application under Section 451 CrPC for relea.se of the
truck. The application was rejected by the Judicial
Magistrate on the ground that as per Section 68(3) of the
Gujarat Animal PreservatioL (Amendment) Act, 2011, the
seized truck could not be released before the expiry of C
six months from the date of its seizure. The order was
upheld by the revisional court as also by the High Court,
and therefore the instant appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court D
HELD: 1. Sub section (~) of Section 6A of the Gujarat
Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 stipulates
that whenever any person transports in contravention of
provisions of Sub-section (1), any animal as specified in
Section 5(1 A) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, E
such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting
such animal, shall be liable to be seized by the authority/
officer concerned. In the case at hand, the vehicle which
has been impounded by the respondents was not
carrying the category of animals which has been laid F
down under Section 5(1A). The vehicle in question was
transporting the 'buffalo calves'. [Paras 8, 9] [656-F, G-H;
657-A]
2. The courts below including the High Court grossly
erred by overlooking the correct position of law as stated G
in Section 6A(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation
(Amendment) Act, 2011. Sub-section 1A of Section 5 of
the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 stipulates the
schedule of animals which are as under: (a) a cow; (b)
the calf of a cow, whether male or female and if male, H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A whether castrated or not; (c) a bull; (d) a bullock. It is
clear from the above description of animals that the
buffalo calf does not fall under the list of prohibited
animals. Thus, Section 68(3) of the Gujarat Animal
Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 cannot be invoked
8 in order to deny the claim of release of the vehicle before
the expiry of six months from the date of its seizure. [Para
11] [657-E-H; 658-A]
3. Section 5(1) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act,
1954 prohibits slaughtering of any animal without a
C certificate in writing from the Competent Authority that·
the animal is fit for slaughter. In other words, without a
certificate from competent authority, no animal could be
slaughtered. Sub-section (1A) to Section 5 mandates that
no certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in
D respect of the abovementioned animals. In the said
section, admittedly, 'buffalo.calf has not been mentioned
as prohibited animal. In such circumstance, the
prohibition relating to release of vehicle before a period
of six months as mentioned in Section 68(3) of the
E Amendment Act is not applicable since the appellant was
transporting 28 ~qffalo calves only. In view of the same,
it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the police
station in open condition which is prone to natural decay
on account of weather conditions. In addition to the
F above Interpretation, whatever be the situation, it is of no
use to keep the seized vehicle in the police station for a
long period. The respondents are accordingly directed to
release the vehicle - Eicher True.Jc forthwith. [Paras 12, 13]
[658-B-E, G]
G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 219 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2012 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Special Criminal Application
H No. 2755 of 2012.
MULTAN! HANIFBHAI KALUBHAI v. STATE OF 651
GUJARAT & ANR.
O.P. Bhadani, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ashok Anand for the A
Appellant.

Shomik Sanjanwala, Hemantika Wahi, Nandini Gupta for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

P. SATHASIVAM,J. 1. Leave granted. ·

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 25.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at c
Ahmedabad in Special. Criminal Application No. 2755 of 2012
whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by the
appellant herein.

3. Brief facts:
D
(a) The vehicle of the appellant, Eicher Truck, was seized
by the police, which was found to be transporting 28 buffalo
calves. The First Information Report (in short "FIR") was
registered against the appellant on 02.08.2012 for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 114 of the Indian Penal E
Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"), Sections 184, 177 and 192 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "M.V. Act"), Sections 5, 6,
8 and 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Act") and Section 11
of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. F
(b) The appellant filed an application being Criminal Misc.
Application No. 9 of 2012 under Section 451 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") for the release
of his Eicher truck before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Vide order dated 24.08.2012, the G ·
Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application on the ground
that as per the provisions of Section 68(3) of the Gujarat Animal
Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Amendment Act"), the vehicle shall not be released
before the expiry of six months from the date of its seizure. H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.

A (c) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an
application being Criminal Revision Application No. 73 of 2012
before the District & Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, which was
also rejected on 01.09.2012

B (d) Dissatisfied with the order of the District & Sessions
Judge, Gandhinagar, the appellant preferred Special Criminal
Application No. 2755 of 2012 before the High Court. By
impugned order dated 25.09.2012, the High Court dismissed
the said application.

C (e) Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed this
appeal by way of special leave.

4. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhadani, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Shomik Sanjanwala, learned counsel for the
D respondents.

5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
the Courts below are justified in rejecting the prayer of the
appellant as per the provisions of the amended Act?

E 6. The Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (in short
"the Bombay Act"), which was enacted for the preservation of
animals suitable for milch, breeding or for agricultural purposes
was made applicable to the State of Gujarat. The following
provisions of the said Act are relevant for the case in hand:
F
"Section 5 - Prohibition against slaughter without
certificate from Competent Authority. (1)
Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any
usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause
to be slaughtered any animal unless, he has obtained in
G respect of such animal a certificate in writing from the
Competent Authority appointed for the area that the animal
is fit for slaughter.

(1A) No certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted
H in respect of-
. T'

•MULTAN! HANIFBHAI KALUBHAI v. STATE OF 653
GUJARAT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(a) a cow; A

• (b) / the calf of a cow, whether male or female and if.
male, wh~ther castrated or not;

''"' (c) · · a bull; . -' -.
.~ . B
. , •. (d) ,a bullock; • · ·
,,. .,
; (2) In respect of an animal to which sub-section (IA) does
not apply, no certificate shall be 'granted under su~section
(1) if in the opinion of the Competent Authority- ·
' t:-, -.:. ': ; ·: . 'i--~-;i':_.-·._ .. _ -·. - ---~ '.:
c
(a) •. the animal, whether male or female, is useful or
likely to become' useful for the purpose of draught
·.1; · . , or any kind of agricultural operations;
,: ; • __- - ·_ < - • •- ·- -- • - ) -·

· .(b) " the animal if male, is useful or likely to become o •
. . . •. . '' useful for the puri)6se of breeding; . . ' ):
,_ - ' . " '" '· -
(c) the animal, if female, is useful o'r'likely to become
useful for the purpose of·giving milk or bearing
offspring: ' · · · ·· · ·
E
, : (3) Nothing in !hi~ section shall apply to-
.--1. ! . " • - ' -_ -·- ·1 . , .;. • '' . - ' ·' : : ..
:· '(a) . the slaughter of any of the following animals for such
' .. ·.• '• bona fide 'religious purp'oses, as inay be
.· / ,. prescribed, f!amely :-· · · F

. (i) 0' . any animal above the age of fifteen yer--"'. other than
a cow, bull or bullock. · ' , •· ·

.. ( (i'.) ··,· ~ 'bllll ab~ve the'_age of fifteen years ( "
G
(iii) . a bullock above the age of fifteen years. · .'
·--.~ . ~ '...... . - . .'.' -, . -. ' .
(b) the slaughter of any animal not being a cow or a
., , :! calf of a cow.,bull or bullock, on such religious days
,, . ,, . as may be prescrit.ed : . " - • ".
.,, H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A Provided that a certificate in writing for the slaughter
referred to in clause (a) or (b) has been obtained from the
competent authority.

(4) The State Government may, at any time for the purpose
B of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order
passed by a Competent Authority granting or refusing to
grant any certificate under this section, call for and
examine the records of the case and may pas~ -;uch order
in reference thereto as it thinks fit.
c (5) A certificate under this section shall be granted in such
form and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.

(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) any order
passed by the Competent Authority granting or refusing to
D grant a certificate, and any order passed by the State
Government under sub-section (4) shall be final and shall
not be called in question in any Court."

In the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, after Section
E 6, the following new sections were inserted:-
"6A. (1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or
cause to be transported any animal specified in sub-
_. section (1A) of section 5 from any place within the State
'· to any another place within the State for the purpose of its
F slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or
with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be so
slaughtered:
Provided that a person shall be deemed to be
transporting such animal for the purpose of slaug~ter
G unless contrary is proved thereto to the satisfaction of the
concerned authority or officer by such person or he has
obtained a permit under sub-section (2) for transporting
animal for bona fide agricultural or animal husbandry
purpose from such authority or officer as the State
H Government may appoint in this behalf.
MULTANI HANIFBHAI KALUBHAI v. STATE OF 655
GUJARAT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(2) (a) A person may make an application in the A
prescribed form to the authority or officer referred
to in sub-section (1) for grant of permit in writing for
transportation of any animal specified in sub-section
(1A) of section 5 from any place within the State to
any another place within the State. B

(b) If, on receipt of any such application for grant of
permit, such authority is of the opinion that grant of
· permit shall not be detrimental to the object of the
Act, it may grant permit in such form and on
payment of such fee as may be prescribed and
c
subject to such conditions as it may think fit to
impose in accordance with such rules as may be
prescribed.

(3) Whenever any person transports or causes to be D
transported in contravention of provisions of sub-
section (1) any animal as specified in sub-section
(1A) of section 5, such vehicle or any conveyance
used in transporting such animal along with such
animal shall be liable to be seized by such authority E
or officer as the State Government may appoint in
this behalf.

(4) The vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-
section (3) shall not be released by the order of the
court on bond or surety before expiry of six months F
from the date of such seizure or +ill the final
judgment or the court, whichever is ea !ier.

68. (1) No person shall directly or indirectly sell, keep,

products in any form.
.
store, transport, offer or expose for sell or bury beef
.
or beef G

(2) Whenever any person transports or causes to be
transported the beef or beef products, such vehicle
or any conveyance used in' transporting such beef
J H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A or beef products along with such beef or beef
products shall be liable to be seized by such
authority or officer as the State Government may
appoint in this behalf.

(3) The vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-
B
section (2) shall not be released by the order of the
court on bond or surety before the expiry of six
months from the date of such seizure or till the final
judgment of the court, whichever is earlier.

C _ Explanation - For the purpose of this section "beef' means
flesh of any animal specified in sub-section (1A) of section
5, in any form."

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
0 provisions of the Amended Act clearly mention the applicability
of Section 6A(3) to the class of animals as given in Section 5
(1A) of the Principal Act, viz., cow, the calf of a cow, bull and
bullock, however, this section nowhere mentions 'buffalo calves'
which have been found in the seized vehicle. According to him,
in the absence of prohibited categories of animals as
E aforesaid, invoking of Section 68(3) for not releasing the
vehicle of the appellant before the expiry of six months from the
date of seizure is not sustainable in law.

8. In context of the above, it ic; relevant to note that on
F 12.10.2011, an amendment was brought in the Principal Act
which was called the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment)
Act, 2011. By virtue of this Amendment Act, a new Section 6A
was brought in the Principal Act. We have already extracted
Section 6A of the Amended Act.
G
9. Sub-section (3) of Section 6A of the Amended Act
stipulates that whenever any person transports in contravention
of provisions of Sub-section (1), any animal as specified in
Section 5(1A), such vehicle or any conveyance used in
.-H transporting such animal, shall be liable to be seized by the
MULTAN! HANIFBHAI KALUBHAI v. STATE OF 657
GUJARAT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
authority/officer concerned. It .is brought to our notice that the A
vehicle which has been impounded by the respondents was not
carrying the category of animals which has been laid down
under Section 5(1A). The vehicle in question was transporting
the 'buffalo calves'.
B
10. A perusal of the FIR shows that one Sajidkhan
Pirmohemmed Multani, driver of the vehicle and Rajubhai
Kalubhai Multani had been passing from Sector 30 of
Gandhinagar, Gujarat. The police tried to stop the said vehicle
but when they did not stop, they followed and intercepted the
same; On search being made inside +.he vehicle, they found 28 C
buffalo calves. Respondent No.2 herein arrested both the
persons and seized Eicher Truck bearing Registration No. GJ-
9-Z-3801, which is the vehicle in question.

11. The courts below rejected the application filed by the D
appellant for release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the
Code on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 68(3)
of the Amendment Act, the vehicle of the appellant shall not be
released before the expiry of six months from the date of its
seizure. On going through the relevant provisions, we are of the E
view that the Courts below including the High Court grossly
erred by overlooking the correct position of law as stated in
Section 6A(3). Sub-section 1A of Section 5 stipulates the
schedule of animals which are as under:

(a) a cow; F

(b) the calf of a r:ow, whether male or female and if
male, whether castrated or not;

(c) a bull; G
(d) a bullock.
It is clear from the above description of animals that the buffalo
calf does not fall under the list of prohibited animals. We have
already noted and it is not in dispute that th~ vehicle in que~tion H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S. C.R.

A was carrying 28 buffalo calves. Thus, Section 68(3) of the
Amendment Act cannot be invoked in order to deny the claim
of release of the vehicle before the expiry of six months from
the date of its seizure.

12. It is true that Section 5(1) prohibits slaughtering of any
8
animal without a certificate in writing from the Competent
Authority that the animal is fit for slaughter. In other words,
without a certificate from competent authority, no animal could
be slaughtered. Sub-section (1A) to Section 5 mandates that
no certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in respect
C of the abovementioned animals. In the said section, admittedly,
'buffalo calf has not been mentioned as prohibited animal. In
such circumstance, the prohibition relating to release of veh~cle
before a period of six months as mentioned in Section 68(3)
of the Amendment Act is not applicable since the appellant was
D transporting 28 buffalo calves only. In view of the same, it is not
advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the police station in
open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of
weather conditions. In addition to the above interpretation,
whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep the seized
E vehicle in the police station for a long period.

13. In the light of the above conclusion, order dated
24.08.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar
in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9 of 2012, order dated
F 01.09.2012, passed by the District and Sessions Judge,
Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 73 of 2012
and order dated 25.09.2012, passed by the High Court in
Special Criminal Application No. 2755 of 2012 are set aside
and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle - Eicher
G Truck bearing Regn. No. GJ-9-Z-3801 forthwith.

14. The appeal is allowed.

8.8.8. Appeal allowed.