Animal-custody principles under cruelty law: panjarapole has standing, but interim custody remains fact-specific and welfare-based.

A panjarapole has locus standi to seek interim custody of animals seized in cruelty-related proceedings because the statutory scheme recognises its animal-welfare role. Section 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does not create a universal rule that seized animals must be handed to a panjarapole; interim custody depends on the facts, the condition of the animals, and the need to prevent further cruelty. Maintenance costs are not generally recoverable from the owner or accused merely because custody is given to the State or panjarapole. Police seizure is not invalid simply because the offence is non-cognizable, and interim custody must be decided case by case under judicial discretion guided by animal welfare.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a panjarapole has locus standi to seek interim custody of animals seized in cruelty-related proceedings. (ii) Whether Section 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 makes custody of seized animals in favour of panjarapole a rule. (iii) Whether the costs of maintenance of animals in custody can be recovered from the owner or accused. (iv) Whether seizure of animals by police in offences under the Act is illegal because such offences are non-cognizable. (v) What principles should govern interim custody of seized animals.

Issue (i): Whether a panjarapole has locus standi to seek interim custody of animals seized in cruelty-related proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme recognises panjarapole as an institution connected with animal welfare and preservation. Section 9 encourages its formation and Section 35 contemplates sending seized animals to such an institution. In proceedings concerning cruelty to animals, the institution is not a stranger to the subject matter and has a real interest in the welfare of the animals.

Conclusion: Yes. A panjarapole has locus standi to maintain a petition concerning interim custody of seized animals.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 makes custody of seized animals in favour of panjarapole a rule.

Analysis: Section 35 has to be read with the object of the Act and with the practical distinction between an infirmary and a panjarapole. The use of the word "shall" does not, by itself, make the provision imperative in every case. Interim custody depends on the facts, the condition of the animal, and the need to protect the animal from further cruelty. The provision does not impose a universal mandate to hand over custody to panjarapole.

Conclusion: No. Section 35(2) does not require, as a rule, that interim custody must be given to panjarapole.

Issue (iii): Whether the costs of maintenance of animals in custody can be recovered from the owner or accused.

Analysis: The Act specifically provides for payment of transport, maintenance and treatment costs where animals are kept in an infirmary, but it does not contain a general provision authorising recovery of maintenance expenses from the owner or accused during investigation, enquiry or trial when custody is otherwise directed. If the State or panjarapole seeks custody, the burden of maintenance follows that custody.

Conclusion: No. The owner or accused cannot be required to pay maintenance costs merely because custody is given to the State or panjarapole.

Issue (iv): Whether seizure of animals by police in offences under the Act is illegal because such offences are non-cognizable.

Analysis: Even where the offence under the Act is non-cognizable, Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises seizure of property suspected to be connected with an offence. Once seizure is effected, the police must report it to the Magistrate, who can then pass appropriate custody orders under Section 451. The non-cognizable character of the offence does not invalidate the seizure itself.

Conclusion: No. Police seizure of the animals was not illegal merely because the offences were non-cognizable.

Issue (v): What principles should govern interim custody of seized animals.

Analysis: The controlling considerations are preservation of livestock and prevention of further cruelty. Courts should not be guided by emotion. For a first offence, custody should ordinarily go to the owner or person from whose possession the animals were taken unless there are strong reasons to fear further cruelty. Where custody is given to panjarapole, the Court should examine its reputation, require undertakings as to care, non-sale and production of animals, and ensure that the trial proceeds expeditiously.

Conclusion: Interim custody must be decided on judicial discretion guided by animal welfare, the facts of the case, and suitable protective conditions.

Final Conclusion: The applications succeeded only in part. The Court upheld the locus of panjarapole and the competence of police seizure, rejected the claim that custody must invariably go to panjarapole, disapproved recovery of maintenance charges from the owner or accused as a general rule, and applied these principles to allow some matters, reject others, and remand certain custody questions for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings concerning seized animals, panjarapole has standing by reason of the statutory animal-welfare scheme, but custody is not mandatorily vested in it; interim custody must be determined case by case on welfare-based judicial discretion, and non-cognizable offences do not prevent seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---