PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed an FIR registered by the Mapusa Police against two residents in an alleged illegal extraction and storage of meat case, holding that the basic ingredients of the invoked offences were not made out.
In the judgment delivered on Monday, Justice Ashish Chavan set aside the FIR against Meerasab Bepari and Appalal Bepari under Sections 271 and 280 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 8 of the Goa Animal Preservation Act, 1995.
The case was registered on October 29, 2024, when police responded to a call alleging illegal meat activity at the petitioners’ residence. A mob had gathered outside the house, prompting police to conduct a search during which meat, animal fat and utensils were seized. Subsequent forensic analysis, however, confirmed that the seized meat and fat were of buffalo origin.
The court observed that for an offence under Section 271 of the BNS -- relating to acts likely to spread infection -- there was no allegation or material to show any likelihood of disease transmission. Similarly, for Section 280, which deals with making the atmosphere noxious, the court found no evidence that the surroundings were rendered harmful to public health.
On the applicability of the Goa Animal Preservation Act, the court noted that there were no allegations of slaughter of scheduled animals or illegal sale of beef in violation of the Act.
“Although the FIR does not spell out the nature of the contravention, taking the allegations in the FIR and the complaint to be true and correct, it is not the case of the prosecution that any scheduled animal was either slaughtered or sought to be slaughtered in the premises of the Petitioners in contravention of Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act. There is also no allegation that any beef was being sold in the premises of the Petitioners in contravention of Section 7 and/or Section 7-A of the said Act. Thus, going by the case of the prosecution in the impugned FIR, the Petitioners have not committed any offences either under the IPC or under the Goa Animal Preservation Act, 1995,” the Court observed.
The bench relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to conclude that the case fit within the parameters warranting quashing of criminal proceedings. The criminal writ petition was accordingly allowed and the FIR was quashed. And set aside.
