Burden of Proof Lies on Accused to Establish Cattle Transportation Was Not for Slaughter.

On June 27, 2016, at approximately 3:30 AM, police intercepted a truck (Mahindra Kotter) at Jhalpur Mod, Saraipali, which was found to be transporting 32 agricultural cattle in a cramped and cruel manner

The truck, driven by Sarfaraz Khan, was being escorted by a Bolero vehicle containing four other accused individuals

The accused failed to produce any valid permits or documentation for the transportation of the cattle

Following a medical examination of the cattle (Ex. P-1) and their seizure (Ex. P-2), the accused were charged under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004

The Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the applicants on September 20, 2016, sentencing them to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a ₹1,000 fine

This conviction was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, on July 28, 2017

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established that the transportation of cattle was for the purpose of slaughter or in violation of Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004

2. Whether the burden of proof was correctly placed upon the accused under Section 11 of the Act to prove that the transportation was lawful

3. Whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the nature of the offense and the background of the accused

Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, which prohibits the transport of agricultural cattle for slaughter within or outside the state

Section 10, which prescribes penalties for such violations

Section 11, which explicitly shifts the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate that the transport, sale, or purchase of agricultural cattle was not in contravention of the Act

Precedent of Shankar & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh (2014), noting that the specificities of the charges in the present case were clearly defined

The court observed that the testimony of the Head Constable (PW-3) and the medical report (Ex. P-1) confirmed the unauthorized transport of 32 healthy cattle

Despite some independent witnesses turning hostile, the court found the police testimony reliable and corroborated by the seizure memos signed by the witnesses

Applying Section 11 of the Act, the court emphasized that once the physical transport without a permit was proven, the onus shifted to the applicants to show the transport was for a legal purpose; however, the applicants failed to produce any purchase receipts or movement permits during the trial or in their Section 313 CrPC statements

The court distinguished the Shankar case cited by the defense, noting that in this instance, the charge explicitly stated the intent and destination of the transport

Consequently, the court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the conviction

The substantive prison term was reduced to the period already undergone (approx. 2 months and 24 days for some, 2 months and 2 days for others)

In lieu of the reduced jail time, the fine was increased from ₹1,000 to ₹10,000 for each applicant, to be deposited within 60 days, failing which they must undergo an additional five months of simple imprisonment

The criminal revisions were partly allowed regarding the sentencing