Calcutta HC: Pet owners must ensure animals don't harm others
Calcutta HC
KOLKATA: Pet owners must ensure their animals do not harm others, Calcutta high court has said in a recent order, turning down a man's plea to quash a criminal case pertaining to a dog attack on a neighbour.
"The potential gravity of a dog attack on a human, capable of causing serious injury or even posing a threat to life, cannot be overstated. Therefore, a pet owner is undeniably duty-bound to exercise a certain degree of care and take sufficient steps to prevent their pet from causing harm," Justice Uday Kumar said in his order on May 23.
The pet owner from Sonarpur, on Kolkata's outskirts, was charged under Section 289 of IPC, pertaining to "negligent conduct with respect to animals".
This followed a complaint from the neighbour alleging he was attacked by 10-12 of the man's pet dogs on the terrace of their apartment building in 2022, leading to injuries.
In his HC plea, the pet owner said the charges were based on "falsehood and inaccuracies". He claimed he had only one dog and that a medical report of the complainant mentioned there was "no obvious external injury".
But Justice Kumar cited IPC Section 289 to say it imposed a "duty on the owner or possessor of an animal" to take adequate measures to prevent any probable danger to human life or grievous hurt to others.
The judge pointed out that the section specifically uses the words "knowingly or negligently omits", emphasising either actual knowledge of the animal's harmful propensity or a lack of due care in its management.
While the police chargesheet mentioned that "10-12 dogs" belonged to the accused, the pet owner disputed it, highlighting the absence of documentary and photographic evidence. Justice Kumar held that the accused could highlight these lapses during trial, adding the HC could not assume "the role of a fact-finding authority".
"Even if the injury was not externally obvious, being attacked by 10-12 dogs and falling on a roof could potentially lead to internal injuries, non-visible bruises, or psychological trauma. Furthermore, the complaint highlights a broader concern regarding the practice of keeping 'many dogs...unchained on the roof of a housing (complex)', which, if true, could indeed pose a threat to human life, regardless of immediate physical injury," the judge observed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Disturbed Areas Act: HC directs Vadodara police to redress grievance of petitioner seeking to ‘enjoy property' bought in 2020
Stating that 'it is the duty of the state to maintain law and order', the Gujarat High Court has directed the Vadodara city police to remedy the grievance of a petitioner seeking police protection to 'enjoy their property' — four years after it ruled in favour of the petitioners following a controversy under the Disturbed Areas Act. In an oral order on June 19, Justice HD Suthar stated, 'Considering the orders passed in Special Criminal Application, Review Application as well as in Letters Patent Appeal, it appears that as the petitioners are owners of the property in question and they want to enjoy their property, (they) have approached the authority, more particularly the Police Inspector, Panigate Police Station, Vadodara on July 7, 2024… till date, nothing has been done…' According to the order, 'In view of the facts of the case and looking to the grievance of the petitioner, the respondent authority concerned is hereby directed to redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law as it is the duty of the State to maintain the law and order. If any adverse outcome is there, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.' The owners of the property, Onali Ezazuddin Dholkawal and Iqbal Hussain Asgarali Tinwala, had moved the court in 2024 seeking directions against the Vadodara city police, particularly Panigate police station, 'to facilitate and effectuate the petitioners to enter and use their commercial property and repair and rehabilitate it'. The petitioners cited notices received from the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) with warning of the property being in a dilapidated condition and ordered it to be repaired during the period of the long-drawn litigation under the Disturbed Areas Act with multiple petitions. 'The petitioners were receiving notices dated July 1, 2019, September 24, 2021, and June 26, 2023, along with undated notices affixed on the premises by VMC as the property is in a dilapidated condition and is dangerous for the neighbours. But since the petitioners were not being allowed to enter inside the property, the petitioners could not take any steps for the same,' the petition stated. Stating that the petitioners requested police protection to enter the property by way of representation dated October 9, 2021, and also filed a written complaint against the neighbours in April 2022, the petitions stated, 'But somehow, the protection is not granted and no action was taken by the city police and eventually, the petitioners avoided entering the property in order to prevent any law and order situation or untoward incident… The petitioners sought such police protection last April 2024. But unfortunately, even thereafter the petitioners have not been able to enter and use the property… the neighbours and local corporators are creating hurdles and law and order situation.' The petition pointed out that despite being 'assured police protection', the city police has denied the same 'under one pretext or the other'. The petition stated that on July 22, 2024, accompanied by the city police, the petitioners tried to enter the property but 'the neighbours, along with politically influential persons and particularly local corporators… obstructed the entry of the petitioners in presence of police. The said incident was videographed and thus some of the photographs were also taken, which shows the corporators and other persons objecting to the entry of the petitioners.' Following alleged threats, the petitioners also submitted a written complaint to the police the next day, seeking an FIR, 'which has not been filed.' The petition stated that the Vadodara City police 'failed to discharge their statutory duties and obligations', which has 'resulted in gross violation of the Fundamental Rights of Article 14, 19 and 21 as enshrined under the Constitution of India' and also a violation of the previous orders of the Gujarat HC. The case pertains to a property located in the old city area of Vadodara, which falls under the purview of the The Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991, also known as the Disturbed Areas Act. The petitioners had sought permission under the Disturbed Areas Act in August 2016 from the Deputy Collector, Vadodara, which was rejected vide in January 2017. Therefore, the petitioners appealed before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), which was also rejected in June 2018. In March 2020, the HC ruled in favour of the petitioners in a Special Civil Application and granted permission under the Disturbed Area Act. Thus, the sale deed of the petitioners' property was registered December 15, 2020. Even as the petitioners were not allowed to enter their property, the HC order in the Special Civil Application was challenged by way of review petition being filed by some private persons who were panchas (independent witnesses) to the panchnama prepared for grant of permission. Some 'disgruntled neighbours' also filed an application for being joined in the said review petition, which was rejected by the Gujarat HC in March 2022. The HC, in August 2023, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of private persons and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on two panchas who had raised an objection to the sale of a property. The HC had questioned the motive of the two panchas and noted that they had made their declaration, expressing their 'no objection' to the transfer in 2016, and hence, the court had upheld the sale to be valid and not a distress sale in March 2020. Commissioner of Police, Vadodara, Narasimha Komar was unavailable for comments on Saturday.
Mint
35 minutes ago
- Mint
CBI files FIR against ex-officers of JNPT, TCE over ₹800 crore irregularities in dredging project; conducts searches
The CBI has registered a case against former officials of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) and Tata Consulting Engineers (TCE), as well as as two dredging companies, alleging irregularities worth more than ₹ 800 crore. As per officials, the alleged irregularities are linked to the Capital Dredging Project to deepen ship navigational channels near Mumbai. The federal investigative agency's action comes after three years of a preliminary inquiry that took a look into accusations of inflated estimates, halting of competition to benefit international bidders, extending undue favours to contactors, and suppression of reports of independent expert organisations. The CBI in its FIR has booked named then chief engineer of JNPT Sunil Kumar Madabhavi, then project director of TCE, Devdutt Bose, Boskalis Smit India LLP, Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt Ltd and other unidentified public servants. The case has been lodged under IPC Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating) and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following the registration of its FIR, the CBI searched five locations in Mumbai and Chennai, including the homes of Madabhavi and Bose, and offices of private companies. The searches led to the recovery of a number of documents relating to the Capital Dredging Project, digital devices and documents showing investments made by public servants, a CBI spokesperson said. The documents recovered are being examined, she said in a statement. No immediate reaction was available from the accused companies. 'The allegations of pecuniary advantage obtained by the private companies as a result of abuse of official position by the JNPT officials resulting into a huge wrongful loss to the exchequer, spread over the period from 2003 to 2014 (phase-I of the project) and 2013 to 2019 (phase-II of the project) was also inquired,' the CBI said in the FIR. The inquiry showed a criminal conspiracy between JNPT officials and other private persons, including an official of Tata Consulting Engineers, and others, which resulted in wrongful loss amounting to ₹ 365.90 crore for phase-I and ₹ 438 crore for phase-II to JNPT due to over-dredging. The case pertains to a project envisaged by the JNPT to deepen and widen the navigational channel it shared with the Mumbai Port in 2003 to cater to the needs of larger size cargo ships. TCE was roped in for preparation of a final report on the planning for dredging activities for the Capital Dredging Phase-I project, which was submitted in 2010 in association with Dredging Solution. TCE was also awarded the work of project management consultant for the project, including preparation of the tender documents and work of supervising the execution of the project, the FIR alleged. The CBI during its preliminary inquiry found that JNPT officials along with TCE executives kept tender conditions to favour foreign bidders, and violated the guidelines of Competition Commission of India by allowing complimentary bidding, and allowed the formation of the joint venture by solely eligible bidders Boskalis Smit India LLP with Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt Ltd (also known as BSI-JDN JV). The CBI inquiry also showed violation of a number of guidelines related to fixation of rates for dredging different type of rocks, delay in project, false claim of ₹ 348 crore by the contractor without actual performance of work, excess payment of ₹ 430 crore, and manipulation of the pre-dredge survey by using a less accurate software, 'Qinsy', among others.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
CBI books ex-officials of Tata firm, JNPA in ₹800 crore project fraud case. What investigation found
The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed a case against former officials of Tata Consulting Engineers (TCE), Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) and and two dredging companies over alleged irregularities worth over ₹ 800 crore in the Capital Dredging Project to deepen ship navigational channels near Mumbai, news agency PTI reported, citing officials. The CBI, in its FIR, has booked the then chief engineer of JNPT Sunil Kumar Madabhavi, then project director of TCE, Devdutt Bose, Boskalis Smit India LLP, Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt Ltd and other unidentified public servants.(Pic for representational purpose only) The federal investigative agency acted following a three-year preliminary inquiry into allegations that included inflated project estimates, manipulation of competition to benefit foreign bidders, granting undue favours to contractors, and the suppression of findings from independent expert bodies. The CBI, in its FIR, has booked the then chief engineer of JNPT Sunil Kumar Madabhavi, then project director of TCE, Devdutt Bose, Boskalis Smit India LLP, Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt Ltd and other unidentified public servants under IPC Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating) and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the FIR was registered on Wednesday, the CBI conducted searches at five locations in Mumbai and Chennai, including the residence of Madabhavi, Bose and offices of private companies. A CBI spokesperson said the searches recovered a number of documents relating to the Capital Dredging Project, digital devices, and documents showing investments made by public servants. The documents recovered are being examined, she said in a statement. No immediate reaction was available from the accused companies, the PTI report said. "The allegations of pecuniary advantage obtained by the private companies as a result of abuse of official position by the JNPT officials resulting into a huge wrongful loss to the exchequer, spread over the period from 2003 to 2014 (phase-I of the project) and 2013 to 2019 (phase-II of the project) was also inquired," the CBI said in the FIR. The CBI probe found The inquiry revealed a criminal conspiracy involving officials of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT), private individuals, including an executive from Tata Consulting Engineers (TCE), and others. This alleged collusion resulted in wrongful losses of ₹ 365.90 crore during Phase-I and ₹ 438 crore in Phase-II of the dredging project due to over-dredging. 365.90 crore during Phase-I and 438 crore in Phase-II of the dredging project due to over-dredging. The case stems from a project initiated by JNPT in 2003 to deepen and widen the shared navigational channel with Mumbai Port to accommodate larger cargo vessels. TCE was engaged to prepare the final report for Capital Dredging Phase-I, which it submitted in 2010 in collaboration with Dredging Solution. The company was also appointed as the project management consultant, responsible for drafting tender documents and supervising project execution, according to the FIR. The CBI's preliminary inquiry found that JNPT officials, in collusion with TCE executives, structured the tender conditions to favour international bidders. They allegedly violated Competition Commission of India (CCI) norms by permitting complimentary bidding and enabling the formation of a joint venture between Boskalis Smit India LLP and Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt Ltd (BSI-JDN JV), the only qualified bidders. The probe also highlighted multiple violations, including irregularities in rate fixation for different rock types, delays in project execution, a false claim of ₹ 348 crore by the contractor for unexecuted work, excess payments amounting to ₹ 430 crore, and manipulation of the pre-dredge survey using less accurate software, 'Qinsy', among other issues. (With inputs from PTI)
