12/02/2021
Hats off to lawyer Alwyn Sebastian
In the infamous Putenahalli case, where over a dozen  dogs ranging from huskies to beagles and ShihTzus were found in terrible conditions, bleeding starved filthy and abused, an FIR was lodged based on a complaint by the KAWB, enabled by ACT. The dogs were confiscated and released to CUPA’s safe custody. However due to some gray areas they were returned by the police to the same illegal Breeder .
The case subsequently made by our lawyer Alwyn Sebastian, on behalf of Cupa was emphatic, informed and effective. Our High Court Honorable Judge Mr. MP Sandesh delivered a strong judgment in favor of Animal rights and sound common sense.. This is a landmark for Karnataka Animal Welfare board and a clear sign of better days for the prevention of cruelty to animals in our state

‘Cruelty to animals. Release of seized animals to the accused owner pending investigation is not proper when there are serious allegations of cruelty. Karnataka High Court.’
Read the highlighted bits below :https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/view/YuJOJJpGteWc2NPqlMAvBxeue
‘Having taken note of the principles laid down in the Judgment, it is clear that the very object and wisdom of legislature have to be taken note of and also the expanding of the definition and scope of Article 51-A(g) and (h) and also Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which says environment which includes, all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is observed that animals’ well-being and welfare have been statutorily recognized under Section 3 and Section 11 of the PCA Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under Section 3 and Section 11 of the PCA Act read with Article 51- A(g) and (h) of the Constitution of India.
29. When such being the case, the Magistrate ought to have taken note of the said fact into consideration. I have already pointed out that the allegation against the accused is that he is treating the animals with cruelty and also he is using the same for making the money particularly keeping the female animals for breeding purpose and the said aspect of greediness of the accused has not been taken care of by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the permission was not obtained by the Investigating Officer handing over the dogs from the Court, but ought to have taken note of the paramount consideration of the dogs which have been treated with cruelty and the report of the veterinary doctor says that the dogs are sustained injuries, instead of going on technicality ought to have taken note of the paramount consideration of the welfare of the animals that has not been done. Hence, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has committed an error and it requires an interference of this Court.
Petition allowed.’