5 March 2024 7:15 AM GMT
The Supreme Court recently held that a case under the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964, is not sustainable when the sample of meat was seized by an officer who was not authorised to do so.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which quashed an FIR under the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act on the ground that the sample was seized by an unauthorised officer.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the informant challenging the High Court's decision to quash the case.
After perusing Section 10 of this Act, the Court concluded that the power of an authorized person is confined to only enter and inspect. However, in the instant case, the Assistant Director, who was an authorized person, not only collected the sample of meat but also sent it for analysis.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan categorically held that the said person had no legal authority to collect the sample and that this was “completely illegal.” The Court also observed that this collection took place without giving any notice to the accused persons.
“The crux of the matter is that the sample of the meat was admittedly collected by the Assistant Director, who had no authority in law to collect the sample. He did not collect the sample after notice to the first to third respondents. Thus, the act of collection of sample by the Assistant Director was completely illegal.,” the Bench stated in its judgment.
The appellant, who claims to be an Honorary Animal Welfare Officer, complained to an Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department alleging illegal storage of cow meat in the godown of the respondents. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant, inter-alia, argued that the sample collected from the cold storage was sent for DNA test. The test revealed that the meat was of cow.
At the outset, the Court drew its attention to the fact that the sample was collected not by a police officer but by the Assistant Director. The Court noted that even if it assumed that the Assistant Director was the authorised person under the Act, he had no power to seize any meat sample. Considering that the sample was obtained illegally before sending it for analysis, the Court held:
“It is this sample which was sent for chemical analysis. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution is based on unauthorizedly and illegally collected sample of the meat. Therefore, the High Court was right when it interfered by quashing the First Information Report.”
In view of this, the Court affirmed the view taken by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.