Skip to main content

'Possession of skin of dead Cows, Bullocks not an offence', rules Bombay HC

 Recently, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that that mere possession of a dead animal’s skin would not amount to an offence under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, which prohibits slaughtering, importing, exporting and possessing beef.

The bench comprising of Justice V. M. Deshpande & Anil S. Kilor noted that there is no prohibition for the possession of skin of dead animals unfer the Act and further noted that even if any circular/notification/order is issued by the state government, prohibiting possession of skin, such circular will not prevail over the provisions of the statute.

The Court passed the judgment on December 14  after hearing a plea by one Shafiqullaha Kha, driver of the van allegedly carrying the skin of dead cows. The petitioner sought to quash FIR against him as per section 5A ( prohibition on transportation of cow, bull or bullock from any place within state for purpose of slaughter), 5B ( prohibition on export of cow, bull or bullock within state or any place outside for slaughtering) and 5C ( prohibition on possession of flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered) among others.

The prosecution had alleged that in July 2018 a van was found carrying animal’s skin and a complaint was lodged by a person who claimed to be a president of Bajrang Dal local unit and an FIR was registered in Shivaji Nagar Police station. The Police further said that they verified the complaint and it was found that the vehicle was carrying 187 skins of cow species and the same was confirmed by the Animal Husbandry department.

Advocate A V Bhide for the applicant, who challenged the FIR said that necessary documents including Udyog Aadhar Memorandum, a license under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act, and a bill prepared for selling of raw hide was provided and therefore there was no contravention of any provisions of the state Animal Preservation law.

Additional Public Prosecutor N S Rao, appearing for the Police, however, strongly opposed the plea and sought its dismissal.

After hearing submissions, the court observed that while there were allegations that the applicant was carrying 187 skins of cows in the van, there was no allegation that he was transporting or exporting cow, bull or bullock for purpose of slaughter. Thus, no offence constitutes against the applicant as per the Act of 1976, the bench said.

The bench led by Justice Deshpande observed, “There is no doubt that the skin is not covered under the provisions of the Act of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. Thus, there is no prohibition for the possession of skin of dead animals and in absence of such prohibition, we have of a convinced view that no offence under Section 5-(A), 5-(B), 5-(C) attracts in the present matter and consequently Section 9 and 9-(A) ( both providing punishments under the law) also would not attract.”

While quashing FIR against the applicant, the court held, “Moreover, in absence of any statutory provision, which prohibits possession of skin of a dead animal, even if, any circular or notification or order has been issued by the State Government, prohibiting possession of skin, such circular, notification or order which has no statutory force will not prevail over the provisions of the statute and to that extent, it would be in contravention with the statute. Thus, the contravention of any such notification or circular or order as regards possession of skin will not attract Section 188 (contempt of lawful authority of public servant) of the Indian Penal Code.”


We are India’s Leading Law Firm
“The firm has always strives to create and implement innovative and effective methods of providing cost-effective, quality representation and services for our clients and will continue to meet and exceed the expectations of our valued clients.”


Get in Touch

NEW DELHI,, DELHI, 110058.
CALL: +91-9830333388.


Popular posts from this blog


  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected

Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1)

   Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) --- PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE APPLYING ---   Urgent Hiring for: LAW STUDENTS/CS STUDENTS/ FRESHER LAW GRADUATES/ FRESHER CS. Position: Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) Department: Legal. Firm Name: LEXIS AND COMPANY – LAW FIRM. Location: Janakpuri, New Delhi. CTC: RS 5000/- Per Month. Additional Allowance: All official expenses including travelling allowance for official purposes will be paid from the day 1 of the service with the firm.   We are urgently looking for LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS for the position of Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) for our Law Firm in Janakpuri, New Delhi.   Eligibility: Mandatory Qualification: Any LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS who wants to learn as a beginner. Desired Qualification: Any additional qualification  will be pre

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct