Can a conviction under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 rest on a mere presumption that cattle were carried for slaughter?

Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 — ss.6, 10, 11 — Transportation of agricultural cattle — Purpose of slaughter — Reverse presumption — Essential ingredients —

Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 — s.6 — Transportation of cattle — Mere presumption of intention —

Held: Transportation of cattle is an offence under Section 6 where it is for the purpose of slaughter; a mere presumption of that intention, with nothing on record to show it, cannot uphold a conviction. (¶8)

Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 — s.11 — Reverse presumption — Essential ingredients of the offence —

Held further: The reverse presumption under Section 11 can apply only if the essential ingredients are proved, and absence of documents cannot lead to a presumption of slaughter. Conviction set aside; appeal allowed. (¶8, 10)

Can a conviction under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 rest on a mere presumption that cattle were carried for slaughter?

No. The offence under Section 6 is transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter, or with knowledge that they are likely to be slaughtered, so that intention must be shown by what is on record and not left to presumption. Here, interception and seizure by the Head Constable were established, but there was nothing substantial to show that the Bolero car was escorting the truck and the only link to slaughter was the mere presumption of the Head Constable, as the Veterinary Doctor and the President of the Gaushala Committee stated that the cattle were fit for ploughing. [¶7, ¶8]

Can the reverse presumption under Section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 apply only if the essential ingredients of the offence are proved?

Yes. Under Section 11 the onus lies on the accused to prove that there was no violation of the Act in the transport for slaughter or in the slaughter itself, but that onus would apply only where the essential ingredients of the offence stand proved. Here, there was nothing on record to show slaughter other than the mere presumption of PW3, so the reverse presumption would not apply. [¶8]

Can transport of cattle not accompanied by documents lead to a presumption that it was for slaughter?

No. An assumption of violation of the Act cannot be made from the absence of documents to validate the transportation; where it is in violation of any statute, the consequences should flow from that statute. Here, the cattle were not accompanied by documents but there was nothing else on record to show slaughter. [¶8]

What did the Supreme Court finally decide on the conviction for transport of cattle?

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the revisional order together with the conviction and sentence by the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court, as there was no reason to uphold the conviction when the Veterinary Doctor and the President of the Gaushala Committee had stated that the cattle were fit and good for agricultural purposes and suitable for ploughing. [¶7, ¶9, ¶10]

“7. As we see from the impugned order, what has been established is only that the truck was intercepted and the cattle seized by PW3. There is nothing substantial to prove that the Bolero car was escorting the truck. Before the Revisional Court, the driver of the truck had raised an argument that the passengers in the Bolero car had hired the truck and the cattle belonged to them. However, such a contention was not taken by the accused even before the trial court and nor was such an explanation offered in the Section 313 Statement.”

“8. Section 6 specifically 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. 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.”

“9. 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 and good for use in agriculture like for ploughing.”