A vehicle owner is responsible for the transport, and care of animals until the case is concluded if seized under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

Case: Altaf Babru Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

According to the Bombay High Court, a vehicle owner seized under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is responsible for transporting, treating, and caring for animals until the case is concluded.

According to Justice Prakash D Naik, just being the owner of a vehicle cannot be a reason to absolve the petitioner of responsibility for the maintenance and health inspection of animals in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules.

It is alleged that 23 buffaloes were transported illegally to Mumbai pursuant to a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Animals Act and Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The police rescued the buffaloes and handed them to a gaushala for care.

An order directing him and the other accused to pay 96,625 for the maintenance and health inspection of the animals until May 13, 2022, and RS 200 per day until the trial is completed was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court.

The Sessions Court upheld the order of the Magistrate.

The petitioner's attorney Atharva Dandekar argued that the Magistrate ordering him to pay maintenance with the other persons was illegal. Having returned the vehicle and not having been involved in the sale or transportation of the animals, he argued that he could not be legally compelled to maintain them.

As the truck was intercepted and found carrying the transport illegally and cruelly, the Additional Public Prosecutor AR Patil for the State maintained that the order passed by the Magistrate and Sessions Court was legal.

Further, he noted that Rule 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules states that in cases of animal transport offenses, the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents, and any other parties involved are jointly and severally liable for the cost of transporting, treating, and caring for animals.

According to the High Court, the Sessions Judge referred to Rule 5 and correctly observed that the petitioner, as the owner of the truck, was jointly and severally liable for the costs of transport and treatment.

Therefore, the HC dismissed the petition.