Setting aside a cattle transport conviction, the Supreme Court has held that transporting bullocks without documents does not by itself show they were being taken for slaughter, and the reverse burden under the Chhattisgarh law applies only once the basic ingredients of the offence are proved.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a man found guilty under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 for allegedly escorting a truck carrying 32 bullocks towards Odisha, holding that there was nothing on record to show the animals were being transported for slaughter and that the lack of transport documents could not fill that gap [Saurabh Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal on September 29, 2026, setting aside the High Court’s revisional order along with the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
The case
According to the prosecution, a Head Constable (PW3) acting on information intercepted a truck carrying 32 bullocks from Keduwa that was proceeding towards Odisha. The cattle were seized and the driver and cleaner were arrested. A Bolero car moving ahead of the truck was also stopped on the allegation that it was escorting the truck, and the four persons travelling in it, including the appellant, were arrested.
Six accused were convicted for transporting cattle in violation of Section 6 of the Act and sentenced under Section 10 to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000. The First Appellate Court affirmed the conviction. The High Court, in revision, upheld it but restricted the sentence to the period already undergone. The appellant came to the Supreme Court specifically to challenge the conviction.
Witnesses said the bullocks were fit for ploughing
The Bench noted that the prosecution examined five witnesses. The veterinary doctor (PW1) reported that all the animals were fit and good for agricultural purposes and suitable for ploughing. This was corroborated by the President of the Gaushala Committee, Jogidadar (PW5), who was given custody of the cattle. The two independent seizure witnesses turned hostile, though they accepted their signatures on the mahazar, and did not identify any of the accused.
The Court found that what stood established was only the interception of the truck and the seizure of the cattle. “There is nothing substantial to prove that the Bolero car was escorting the truck,” it observed.
Reverse burden applies only after ingredients are proved
The High Court had relied on Section 11 of the Act, which casts a reverse burden on the accused to prove that the slaughter or transport of agricultural cattle was not in violation of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the presumption cannot be triggered by a police officer’s assumption about intent:
“Section 6 specifically indicates the offence of transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter or knowledge that such cattle are likely to be slaughtered. But for a mere presumption of such intention, by the Head Constable, PW3, there is nothing on record to show that the cattle were carried for slaughter. The reverse presumption provided by Section 11 would apply only if the essential ingredients for alleging the offence are proved before the Trial Court.”
On the absence of papers for the consignment, the Bench said:
“The mere fact that the transport was not accompanied by any documents cannot lead to a presumption that the transport was for slaughter. The absence of documents to validate the transportation, if it is in violation of any statute, then the consequences should flow from that statute and cannot lead to an assumption of violation of the provisions of the Act.”
Conviction set aside
The Bench noted that the driver’s argument before the Revisional Court, that the passengers in the Bolero had hired the truck and owned the cattle, had not been raised before the Trial Court or put forward in the Section 313 statement. Even so, it found no basis to sustain the conviction:
“We find absolutely no reason to uphold the conviction especially when a Veterinary Doctor and the President of Gaushala Committee categorically stated before Court that the cattle seized by PW3 were fit and good for use in agriculture like for ploughing.”
The revisional order, along with the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence and the First Appellate Court’s judgment, was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Why The Cattle Transport Conviction Judgment Matters
Cattle preservation laws in several States combine a transport offence with a reverse burden, and prosecutions often rest on little more than an interception and the lack of papers. The ruling makes clear that the State must first prove the core ingredient, that the cattle were being moved for slaughter or with knowledge that they were likely to be slaughtered, before the accused can be asked to explain anything.
It also separates two kinds of wrongdoing: a breach of transport or permit rules attracts the consequences of those rules, and cannot be converted into a slaughter-related offence by assumption. Expert evidence that the animals were fit for agricultural work weighed heavily against the prosecution’s theory.
Case Title: Saurabh Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16871 of 2026]
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1076
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 29, 2026