GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Friday, February 21, reprimanded the Assam authorities for pursuing cases against individuals involved in meat transportation instead of focusing on more productive matters. While granting interim relief to a transporter booked for transporting packaged raw meat, the court expressed disapproval of the state’s actions.
ALSO READ: Motorcycle Collides With Tempo In Guwahati’s Supermarket Flyover, Two Injured
"State should have better things to do than running after these people," the court remarked.
A Bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stayed the criminal proceedings against the accused and scheduled the case for further hearing on April 16. The interim relief will continue until further orders, with the court directing that the case based on the FIR should not proceed in the meantime.
During the hearing, the Bench noted that a layperson could not distinguish between raw packed meat from different animals merely by looking at 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 observed.
The accused, a warehouse owner, stated that he was only involved in transporting raw packed meat from the warehouse and had no role in its packaging or manufacturing. While the state argued that the accused was selling the meat, the court initially found that this did not necessarily amount to an offence under Section 8 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act.
Section 8 of the Act prohibits the sale of beef without permission from the competent authority. However, the court stated that the provision would only apply if it could be proven that the accused had knowledge that the meat being sold was beef.
"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 stated.
The state's counsel clarified that the meat in question was raw and packed, rather than pre-packaged by the manufacturer. However, Justice Oka challenged the argument, questioning whether the state could prove that the accused had personally packed the meat.