Mere Absence Of Documents Can’t Lead To Presumption That Cattle Was Transported For Slaughter: Supreme Court
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by a person convicted under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While setting aside the conviction in a case registered under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, the Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that the transport was not accompanied by any documents cannot lead to a presumption that the transport was for slaughter.
The appeal was filed by one of the six accused convicted under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 over the allegations of transport of cattle in violation of Section 6.
The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K.Vinod Chandran held, “The reverse presumption provided by Section 11 would apply only if the essential ingredients for alleging the offence are proved before the Trial Court. In which event, the accused has the onus to prove that the transport for slaughter or the slaughter itself was not in violation of the provisions of the Act. The mere fact that the transport was not accompanied by any documents cannot lead to a presumption that the transport was for slaughter. The absence of documents to validate the transportation, if it is in violation of any statute,then the consequences should flow from that statute and cannot lead to an assumption of violation of the provisions of the Act.”
AOR Shantanu Kumar represented the Appellants while Standing Counsel Vinayak Sharma represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The allegation was that 32 bullocks were carried in a truck from Keduwa and the same was proceeding towards Odisha, when it was detained by a Head Constable, who had received information of such transport being made. The cattle were seized, and the driver and the cleaner were arrested. Together with them, a Bolero car, which was moving in front of the truck, was also detained, alleging that the car was escorting the truck. Four persons travelling in the car were also arrested, one of whom was the petitioner. The Trial Court convicted the accused, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court, the High Court, in the impugned order restricted the sentence to that already served. The appellant thus approached the High Court challenging his conviction.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that five witnesses were examined by the prosecution and PW1, a Veterinary Doctor, submitted his report indicating that all the animals were fit for agricultural purposes and suitable for ploughing.
The Bench noted that the High Court referred to Section 11, whereby a reverse burden is cast on the accused to prove that the slaughter or the transportation of the agricultural cattle was not in violation of the provisions of the Act. The Bench explained that Section 6 indicates the offence of transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter or knowledge that such cattle are likely to be slaughtered. “But for a mere presumption of such intention, by the Head Constable, PW3, there is nothing on record to show that the cattle were carried for slaughter”, it stated.
The Bench thus concluded, “We find absolutely no reason to uphold the conviction especially when a Veterinary Doctor and the President of Gaushala Committee categorically stated before Court that the cattle seized by PW3 were fit andgood for use in agriculture like for ploughing.”
Thus, setting aside the order of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the Bench set aside the appellant’s conviction and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Saurabh Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1076)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Shantanu Kumar, Advocates Narsingh Narain Rai, Kumar Ajit Singh, Sudhir Kumar Sharma
Respondent: Standing Counsel Vinayak Sharma, Advocate Yashvardhan Shah, Kshitiz Aggarwal, AOR Ravinder Kumar Yadav