Mumbai, February 19 A Mumbai court prioritized animal welfare over a man's claim to livelihood by dismissing his plea seeking the return of a horse, used in traditional ceremonies, that was seized by the police on charges of cruelty.
Additional Sessions Judge (Mazgaon court) Mujibodeen S Shaikh, in a ruling passed earlier this month, upheld a magistrate's decision to place the horse in an Animal Welfare Board-recognized center rather than returning the animal to its owner.
Based on a First Information Report (FIR) filed by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the police had seized the horse from south Mumbai last year under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Later, Jagannath Kunjuprasad Rajbhar, claiming to be the owner of a traditional ceremonial horse rental business, moved the magistrate court seeking the return of the animal. He argued that he provided horses for 'buggies' at marriage functions and possessed valid and necessary documents.
Rajbhar claimed that he had provided the horse for a marriage function in May last year, where someone had taken its photograph and filed a false FIR. He also contended that he had not mistreated the horse in any way.
Asserting that the detention of the horse has caused unnecessary hardship to his business, he urged the magistrate to hand over its custody.
The police opposed Rajbhar's plea citing a prohibition on 'Victorias' (horse-drawn carriage rides) in Mumbai city and that he had violated a Bombay High Court order.
The police were referring to a June 2015 judgment in which the HC declared the use of Victoria horse-drawn carriages for joyrides in Mumbai as illegal and had directed a complete ban within one year due to animal cruelty and lack of licenses.
PETA (intervenor) had prayed for an order to keep the horse in the Animal Rahat Organization, which is recognized by the Animal Welfare Board.
In its verdict delivered in July last year, the magistrate noted that Rajbhar was doing business in the city, but had not shown any license for the same. "Therefore, prima facie, it seems he is doing such business without any valid license," the lower court had said.
Rejecting Rajbhar's plea, the magistrate handed over the interim custody of the horse to PETA on a bond of Rs 2 lakh and on the condition that the organization will return the horse as and when directed by the court.
Aggrieved with the magistrate's ruling, the man filed a criminal revision application in the sessions court, which was opposed by PETA and the police, contending that it was not maintainable against the order regarding the return of the property.
They submitted that such a plea is maintainable only against final orders or intermediate orders, but not against interlocutory orders.
The sessions judge, finding merits in the submissions of the intervenor and police, rejected Rajbhar's revision plea.
"After having considered the entire facts and circumstances, it becomes crystal clear that the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is an interlocutory order because the application for interim custody of the horse is rejected by the learned magistrate," the court said.