Indian Bare Acts

Search Alphabatically :

THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960

Title : THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960

Year : 1960


 
(1) If any person-

(a) Beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or

(b) 1*[employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease],infirmity, wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be so employed; or

(c) Willfully and unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injurious substance to 1[any animal] or willfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any such drug or substance to be taken by 1[any animal] ; or

(d) Conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or

(e) Keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or

(f) Keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord ; or

(g) Being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog habitually chained up or kept in close confinement; or

(h) Being the owner of 1[any animal] such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or

(i) Without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst ; or

(j) Willfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner, to go at large in any street while the animal is affected with contagious or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the owner to die in any street ; or

(k) Offers for sale or, without reasonable cause,has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, overcrowding or other ill-treatment; or

(l) Multilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner; or]

(m) Solely with a view to providing entertainment-

(i) Confines or causes to be confined any animal (including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object of prey for any other animal; or

(ii) Incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal; or]

(n) 1* * * organises, keeps, uses or acts the management of, any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes; or

(o) Po motes or takes part in any shooting match or competition wherein animals are released from captivity for the purpose of such shooting, he shall be punishable, 2[in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty. rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.]

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), an owner shall be deemed to have committed an offence if he has failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision with a view to the prevention of such offence:

Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting cruelty by reason only of having failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to-

(a) The dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or nose-roping of any animal, in the prescribed manner; or

(b) The destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or 1*[by such other methods as may be prescribed] ; or

(c) The extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force; or

(d) Any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or

(e) The commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Omitted by Act 26 of 1982, s.10.

2. Subs. by s.10, ibid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If any person performs upon any cow or other milch animal the operation called phooka or 1*[doom dev or any other operation (including injection of any substance) to improve lactation which is injurious to the health of the animal] or permits such operation being performed upon any such animal in his possession or under his control, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with both, and the animal on which the operation was performed shall be forfeited to the Government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Ins. by Act 26 of 1982, s.13.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(1) Where the owner of an animal is convicted of an offence under section 11, it shall be lawful for the court, if the court is satisfied that it would be cruel to keep the animal alive, to direct that the animal be destroyed and to assign the animal to any suitable person for that purpose, and the person to whom such animal is so assigned shall, as soon as possible, destroy such animal or cause such animal to be destroyed in his presence without unnecessary suffering, and any reasonable expense incurred in destroying the animal may be ordered by the court to be recovered from the owner as if it were a fine:

Provided that unless the owner assents thereto, no order shall be made under this section except upon the evidence of a veterinary officer in charge of the area.

(2) When any magistrate, commissioner of police or district superintendent of police has reason to believe that an offence under section 11 has been committed in respect of any animal, he may direct the immediate destruction of the animal, if in his opinion, it would be cruel to keep the animal alive.

(3) Any police officer above the rank of a constable or any person authorised by the State Government in this behalf who finds any animal so diseased or so severely injured or in such a physical condition that in his opinion it cannot be removed without cruelty, may, if the owner is absent or refuses his consent to the destruction of the animal, forthwith summon the veterinary officer in charge of the area in which the animal is found, and if the veterinary office certifies that the animal is mortally injured or so severely injured or in such a physical condition that it would be cruel to keep it alive, the police officer or the person authorised, as the case may be, may, after obtaining orders from a magistrate, destroy the animal injured or cause it to be destroyed 2*[in such manner as may be prescribed].

(4) No appeal shall lie from any order of a magistrate for the destruction of an animal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Subs. by Act 26 of 1982, s.11.

2 Ins. by s.12, ibid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last updated on July, 2016

Find a Lawyer

Legal Hall of Fame

The current Legal Luminaries of India, the credible names in the legal circle along with those who would be the leading stars of the next decade. These are some of the reliable names in field of law. Nominate the Legal Stars of tomorrow

More

Recent Judgment


Sudha Mishra vs. Surya Chandra Mishra( R.F.A 299 of 2014

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sudha Mishra vs. Surya Chandra Mishra (R.F.A 299 of 2014)has ruled that a woman has a right over the property of her husband but she cannot claim a right to live in the house of her parents-in-law

More

Bare Acts

Helpline Law provides a user friendly compendium of Indian Law & Bare Acts. Get a complete list & detail of Indian Bare Acts, with amendments and repeals. It comes with easy-to-use features like Search by bare acts & by year. You can even email the information to yourself!

More

Have a Legal Matter ?
Need a Lawyer?

Have a Legal Matter ?

Need a Lawyer?

Male
Female