Fight for restoration of cattle
A beef trader A. Sikkander despite orders from the Judicial Magistrate Court and Fast Track Court had been waging an unending fight with the Animal Welfare Society for the restoration of his cattle. The Magistrate Court has now asked the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chettipalayam, to intervene and ensure that the society restored the cattle to the petitioner.The petitioner’s vehicle was intercepted at Mayileripalayam near Chettipalayam on June 13 and was booked by the Chettippalayam police on charge of overloading the vehicle with as many as 29 cows as against the permission for eight cows. In addition, the petitioner was accused of not providing water for the cattle. A case was registered under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and under the Motor Vehicle Rules.
The case came up for hearing before the Judicial Magistrate Court No VII wherein the petitioner was imposed a fine of Rs. 50 for overloading cattle. The court also directed that the cattle should be handed over to the Gaushala of the Animal Welfare Society for interim custody. The petitioner’s counsel B. Sridhar appealed against the ruling which came up for hearing before the Fast Track Court 1. The petitioner contended that he was dealing with beef business with a valid licence from the Government.The appellate court in its order observed that the cattle seized from the petitioner was neither stolen nor was being smuggled. The only offence made out against the petitioner was overloading of cattle. The court felt that there was no necessity for the confiscation of the cattle and handing over for custody. The court directed the subordinate court to order for restoration of the cattle to the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate Court also issued an order for restoration of the cattle to the petitioner on October 25.
The Society raised a bill on the petitioner for Rs. 3.27 lakh demanding Rs. 80 a head of cattle a day as maintenance for 141 days for restoring the cattle. The charges demanded were in fact higher than the value of the cattle, the petitioner said. The petitioner’s counsel Mr. Sridhar preferred a contempt petition against the Society. The petitioner contended that a Society being run with provisions in the act for funds through donations was not entitled to claim any maintenance charges.
The Magistrate Court also confirmed the contention of the petitioner and asked the Society to restore the cattle without maintenance charges before November 7 failing which the Sub-Inspector of the Police, Chettippalayam, was directed to restore the cattle. However, the petitioner in a release through his counsel had stated that neither had the Society restored the cattle nor the police stepped in to his rescue. The fight for restoration of cattle had caused serious economic constraints on him, he added.
