State should have better things to do: Supreme Court to Assam in beef transportation case

The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Assam authorities for pursuing people involved in meat transportation instead of utilising its resources and time to do other productive things..A Bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while granting interim relief to a transporter who was booked for transportation of packaged raw meat."State should have better things to do than running after these people," the Court remarked.The Court stayed the criminal proceedings against the accused and posted the case for further consideration on April 16."This petition requires final hearing for this purpose the Petition shall be listed on 16th April, interim relief to continue till further orders. In view of interim relief granted, we direct that the case based on FIR shall not proceed until further orders," the Court directed..Pertinently, the Bench also said that a layperson cannot differentiate between the raw packed meat of various animals by merely seeing it."How a person will know only if there is meat, that it is meat of beef. By seeing with naked eyes, person will not know," the Court remarked..This was after the accused, a warehouse owner, told the Court that he was merely transporting raw packed meat from the warehouse..State should have better things to do than running after these people.Supreme Court .The Bench said that the accused was not involved in packing or manufacturing the disputed meat.The State said that the accused was selling the same but the Court prima facie said that will not attract the offence under Section 8 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act.Section 8 prohibits selling of beef without permission from the competent authority.However, the Court said the provision will be attracted only if there is knowledge to the accused that the meat being sold is beef and the "knowledge" aspect will have to be read into the provision."In section 8 it was packed items. He has not packed it. Warehouse is there, but the good which are there, he is not the manufacturer. He has not packed it. In the section, essentially we have to read that only person who has knowledge that what he is selling is beef. That we have to read in the Section 8. In section 8 if somebody is found selling pre packed item…." the Court said."It is not pre packed my lords, it is raw meat in packets," the counsel for the State said. "So therefore, it is not your case that it is he who has packed that raw meat into packets," Justice Oka said. "It is my case that he has done the packaging and he is selling also," the Court for the State said.However, the Court maintained that knowledge of the same on the part of the accused will have to be established."In similar matter Bombay High court has taken a view that the knowledge will have to be read into the section. Knowledge that it is beef has to be read into the section. Take this as an example, don’t take it otherwise. Suppose you are found in possession of meat. Somebody hands over meat. Can you know it was meat of which animal," the Court asked."It was suspected My Lords..." the counsel said."No, we are asking you if person is in possession how will he recognise it is meat of which animal," the Bench persisted."The transportation was intercepted at a Naka. The driver was could not answer the questions regarding what is the actual product. So it was sent for a forensic lab report," the counsel for the State replied..How a person will know only if there is meat, that it is meat of beef. By seeing with naked eyes, person will not know,."That’s what we are saying! Common man can’t understand," Justice Oka replied."Proof of the pudding is in eating," Justice Bhuyan weighed in.The Court then proceeded to stay the criminal case against the accused and posted the matter for consideration in April..[Read Order]