Chhattisgarh HC: Special Laws Override CrPC Discretion In Agricultural Cattle Custody Matters

The Chhattisgarh High Court has solidified the primacy of special state legislation over general procedural law, ruling that criminal courts cannot exercise discretionary powers to grant interim custody of seized cattle to private individuals, including owners or accused persons. In a decisive stance against illegal animal transport, the Court held that the mandatory custody requirements under animal preservation laws operate as an absolute bar to the general jurisdiction typically enjoyed by Magistrates under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal settled a crucial legal reference, affirming that the statutory mandate to house seized agricultural cattle in registered shelters is exhaustive and leaves no room for judicial discretion. The ruling prioritizes the legislative intent of animal welfare over the private property rights of those accused of violating preservation laws.

The Primacy of Section 7 over General Procedural Law

The Court was called upon to determine whether Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 impliedly bars the jurisdiction of criminal courts under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The matter arose from a reference by a Single Judge who doubted the correctness of a previous coordinate bench decision in Jalil Ansari and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Ors.. The petitioner, whose 28 buffaloes were seized for alleged illegal transport to a slaughterhouse, argued that being the owner, he was entitled to interim custody as there was no express statutory bar.

However, the Bench observed that the language used in the special Act is mandatory and certain. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Legislature has consciously employed the expression 'will be under custody'. The provision does not employ permissive expressions such as 'may', 'can', or 'ordinarily'. Nor does it leave the matter to the discretion of the Court. The legislative command is mandatory, certain and exhaustive. Once seizure takes place for offences under the Act, the statute itself determines the custodian of the seized cattle till the conclusion of prosecution."

Harmonizing Special Statutes with General Codes

Overriding Effect of Non-Obstante Clauses

The Court highlighted that Section 18 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 gives overriding effect to its provisions notwithstanding any other law. Furthermore, Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and the corresponding Sections 4 and 5 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) expressly preserve the operation of special statutes.

The Court noted that any conflict between the general power of a Magistrate to deliver property to an owner and the specific command of the Act must be resolved in favor of the special law. It remarked that if persons accused of illegal transport were allowed to reclaim cattle immediately after seizure, the statutory safeguards would become "wholly ineffective."

Court Directions

The Court has following directions:

"The reference made by the learned Single Judge to this Bench is answered accordingly. Registry is directed to list this case before the Bench having the Roster."

Background:

The case originated when a truck carrying 28 buffaloes (23 male and 5 female) from Chhattisgarh to a Jharkhand slaughterhouse was seized. Charges were filed under Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The petitioner’s application for interim custody was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, and the Sessions Court, citing Section 7 of the Act of 2004. During the pendency of this legal challenge, the trial concluded with the acquittal of the petitioner on the benefit of doubt. However, the High Court proceeded to answer the legal reference to settle the law. The Bench relied on Supreme Court precedents such as Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala v. State of Maharashtra ( "2022 SCC OnLine SC 1402": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 1284) and State of M.P. v. Uday Singh ( "(2020) 12 SCC 733": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2655) to affirm that special confiscation and custody mechanisms under local laws must be strictly followed.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRMP No. 274 of 2021
Case Title: Md. Vasim Qurashi v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Amit Buxy, learned Deputy Government Advocate.
Amicus Curiae: Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ankita Gouraha, Advocate.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 33