In the case of Parvez Ahmed & Ors. versus the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court recently declined to overturn criminal charges brought against people accused of having 16 live cattle without a licence to operate a slaughterhouse and cow meat (beef) in their possession.
The Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal-led panel noted that there was no case to dismiss the case against the applicants because the First Information Report (FIR) established a prima facie case of a cognizable offence against them.
In this case, the court was dealing with the 482 CrPC plea, filed by four applicants who had been charged under sections 153-A, 420, 429, 188, 269, 270, and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as sections 3/5/8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act of 1955, section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1979, and sections 7/8 of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 First applicant in the State’s education department, an assistant teacher.
The second applicant is employed by the Madrasa Darul Ulum Gausia Kasba Salempur as an assistant teacher. The third applicant runs a medical supply store, and Hafiz Quran is the fourth applicant.
It was noted that their claim that a report from the Forensic Investigation Laboratory had been received omitted information about the sample’s cow origin. Their argument was that no case could be made out for prosecution under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
The State’s attorney argued that the FIR is a thorough report and that it specifically stated that out of 16 live cattle stock, which included 7 buffaloes, 1 cow, 2 female buffalo calves, 5 male buffalo calves, and 1 male cow-calf, only 1 male cow-calf was present. The state further argued that it was incorrect to state that the FSL report gave the applicants a free pass.
Furthermore, the applicants and other co-accused parties were found to be in possession of 16 cattle despite not having a licence to operate a slaughterhouse. The Court rejected the applicant’s argument on the grounds that no offence could be inferred from reading the First Information Report.
The court emphasised that even though the FSL report had shown that the sample sent for chemical analysis was not cow meat, 16 live cattle were also recovered from the possession of the applicants and another co-accused. The court noted that the defence raised in the current application cannot be taken into consideration at trial because it must be considered by the trial court, at the stage of quashing the charge sheet.
Hence, the case was dismissed.