The Bombay High Court has held that the Magistrate’s discretion under Section 35(4) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to grant complete exemption from maintenance charges includes the lesser power to reduce them where sufficient cause is shown. Prescribed rates under subordinate rules cannot mechanically override that statutory discretion.
Under Section 35(4) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and its proviso, the Court recognised discretion to grant relief on account of the owner’s poverty. Applying the principle that the greater power includes the lesser, the Court held that complete exemption necessarily encompasses partial relief where sufficient cause is established. It therefore upheld the Rs. 100 daily maintenance charge.
Since the Trust failed to provide details of expenditure incurred in maintaining each animal and did not release the cattle despite the owners approaching it to pay the court-fixed charges, the Court said that the Trust must return the cattle upon deposit of Rs. 100 per animal per day for 22 January–9 June 2026. The Court also said that the police must prepare a panchanama at handover, and the owners must maintain the animals in good health and take proper care of them.
Briefly, Shri Siddeshwar Shivmandir Trust challenged three revisional orders irecting temporary release of seized bullocks to their owners against an indemnity bond of Rs. 1.20 lakhs and maintenance charges of Rs. 100 per animal per day. The Trust sought enhancement to Rs. 300 per animal per day, but during arguments restricted its demand to Rs. 200 under the Maharashtra Animal Welfare Board’s circular dated 2 July 2019.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mehroz K. Pathan noted that the owners had produced purchase receipts and their possession before seizure was admitted. The FIR alleged cruelty through tying the animals with short ropes and suspected that they were being taken for slaughter. However, the animals were being taken on foot, and the Revisional Court had found that tying ropes to restrict their movement on the road did not prima facie amount to cruelty.
The High Court observed that the Trust had neither explained the basis for claiming Rs. 300 per animal per day nor pleaded a ground seeking Rs. 200 under the circular. It had also failed to provide expenditure details and had not released the cattle despite the owners approaching it to pay the maintenance charges fixed by the Revisional Court.
