________________
d.
are nothing but a criminal offence in the Public Premise and State is under obligation to prosecute and prevent such killings.
The policy of the Criminal Law u/s 429 of the 1.P.C. in respect of named animals i.e. elephant, camel. horse. mule, buffalo bull, cow, or ox is two fold;
One, to protect absolutely these animals by excluding the 'man' determined value, in terms of their use to owner, by using the words, "Whatever may be the value thereof.
Second, to prescribe enhanced sentence upto 5 years or fine or both in punishing their killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering them useless. When the policy of law is to punish for their killing irrespective of their value by other persons, how can this policy permit the killing of these by owner by sending to slaughter house. The effect of the word "Whatever may be the value thereof in Sec. 429 is to amend the definition of 'mischief' u/s 425, qua animals named in Sec. 429. Therefore, words "Whosoever in Sec. 429 will also include the owner of these animals or who so ever owns it at any time, in the slaughter business.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act-1960, regulates in massive way the relation of man with animals generally, in dealing with them, whether outside the Slaughter House or inside it. The Act permits destruction of suffering animals, permits controlled experiments etc. for purpose of advance-ment of knowledge. It does not give any right to kill any animal at will for food. It however, by S.11 (3) (c), gives unintended impression of right to kill for food, but exempts from punishment, if cruelty is caused by an act or omission, in the course of destruction of any animal as food for mankind, unless destruction or preparation was attempted by infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. It deals with manner of killing rather than with a right of killing.
136.
If slaughtering is viewed in the perspective of above described matrix of legal relations, a slaughter house is not and cannot be only a place earmarked for purpose of killing any animal at will and in any manner by payment of a fee. Therefore, it follows that any slaughtering in the Municipal Slaughter House is necessarily regulated by Laws which are consistent with the above legal framework. Rules and Laws have to check that animals of whatever kind are not killed arbitarily and in particular that useful animals are not slaughtered prematurally.
137. Having considered the legal relations with reference to cattle and livestock etc. the case of plaintiff who are seeking injunction against setting-up of Slaughter House at Narela may be considered. Such an injunction has been claimed on various grounds, the chief among them being that Zonal plan and Development Plan does not envisage this activity. The DDA has filed on record a notification dated 9/3/92, issued by the Land & Building Department of Delhi Administration, showing intentions to acquire land at Narela for the construction of a slaughter house, under the development of Narela Township. DDA has also placed on record Minutes of a meeting held on 3.12.91, in which identification of sites for slaughter house was taken up, at five places including Narela, and it was decided to recommend to DDA, to change the prescribed land use, in the 'Master Plan-2001' to extensive industrial land use, for purpose of locating Slaughter House. It was opined in the said meeting that M.P.D.-2001, provides that industries which are ancillary to the slaughter house activity are permitted under the extensive industries land use category, and as such the slaughter houses themselves would Iso have to be located, within the self same use zone.
138. At this stage, it is necessary to maintain that in Civil Writ No. 2267/90 (referred to earlier as pending and now decided) in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also directed setting-up of a new modern slaughter house on or before December 31, 1993, at an area away from the city, which is not
31