Cow Slaughter case: Supreme Court uphold High Court’s decision of quashing FIR, considering completely Illegal
CASE TITLE- Joshine Antony Vs Smt. Asifa Sultana & Ors.
CASE NUMBER- Criminal Appeal No(S). 1046 Of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(S). 911 Of 2019)
DATED ON- 20.02.2024
QUORUM- Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
FACTS OF THE CASE
The fifth respondent, who was the Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department, on information received from the appellant, entered the factory premises of the first to third respondents and opened two packets kept in ice and collected a sample of meat from the packets. The sample was put in the thermocol box and packed by putting ice around it. The seized sample was sent for analysis. The sample was collected not by a police officer but by the fifth respondent, who was the Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department. On the same day there was one more panchnama drawn in presence of an Assistant Sub-Inspector. The said panchnama records that the sample was already collected and has been sent for testing to the expert. It also records that the meat was stored in a cold storage, which was not functioning. Therefore, the seizure of three rooms and meat packets was made. The police officer did not collect any sample for sending it for analysis. Initially, the First Information Report was filed for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and later on, the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 were attracted. The High Court has quashed the First Information Report. Therefore, the appeal was sought before this court.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 420 of The India Penal Code, 1860
Section 429 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 10 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that huge quantity of meat of cow was found in the custody of the first to third respondents and even before the investigation could proceed, that the High Court has interjected. He submitted that the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1964 Act were attracted. various documents were also presented on record including the panchnama drawn. He submitted that the packets stored in the cold storage of the first to third respondents were deliberately labelled as “Super Fresh Frozen Boneless Buffalo Meat” and that is how Section 420 of the IPC was applied by the police. He further submitted that the sample collected from the cold storage of the first to third respondents was sent for DNA test, which revealed that the meat was of cow. The fifth respondent was duly authorized officer under Section 10 of the 1964 Act and he had authority to enter any premises and to inspect the said premises as he had a reason to believe that the offence under the 1964 Act has been committed. He submitted that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is not explicitly given. However, the court heard the contentions of the respondent No. 1- No.3
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court analyzed the act of collection of sample by the Assistant Director was completely illegal. It is this sample which was sent for chemical analysis. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution is based on unauthorized and illegally collected sample of the meat. Therefore, the High Court was right when it interfered by quashing the First Information Report. Thus, the court found no error in the view taken by the High Court and the appeal got dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shreyasi Ghatak
Click here to read the Judgement
