The Supreme Court criticized Assam’s focus on meat transportation cases, granting relief to a transporter. It questioned how a layperson could identify beef, emphasizing proper resource allocation for more pressing issues.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday criticized Assam authorities for prioritizing cases related to meat transportation instead of focusing on more important matters. The Bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made strong remarks while granting interim relief to a transporter who was booked for transporting packaged raw meat.
The Supreme Court expressed its disapproval, stating that the State should have better things to do than running after these people. The court observed that resources should be utilized for more productive purposes instead of going after meat transporters.
The Court stayed the criminal proceedings against the accused and scheduled the case for final hearing on April 16.
The Bench questioned how a layperson could differentiate between different types of raw meat just by looking at it.
Also Read: Umar Khalid’s UAPA Case| Delhi Court Reserves Order on Bail Plea
“How a person will know only if there is meat, that it is meat of beef. By seeing with naked eyes, a person will not know,”
the Court remarked.
The accused, a warehouse owner, told the Court that he was only transporting pre-packed raw meat and had no role in its packaging or manufacturing.
The Assam authorities argued that the accused was selling beef without permission, violating Section 8 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this claim.
The Court emphasized that the accused must have knowledge that the meat being sold was beef for Section 8 to apply.
Also Read: Umar Khalid Seeks Bail in North East Delhi Violence Case
“In Section 8, it was packed items. He has not packed it. The warehouse is there, but he is not the manufacturer. He has not packed it,”
the Bench stated.
During the hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned how a person could recognize the type of meat just by looking at it.
When the State’s counsel argued that the transported meat was suspected to be beef, the Court countered, saying:
“No, we are asking you—if a person is in possession, how will he recognize it is meat of which animal?”
The State’s counsel admitted that the driver of the vehicle could not answer questions about the product, so the meat was sent for forensic testing.
Also Read: Umar Khalid Bail Hearing: Counsel Argues No Terror Case Established
Justice Oka remarked,
“That’s what we are saying! Common man can’t understand,” while Justice Bhuyan added, “Proof of the pudding is in eating.”
After hearing arguments, the Supreme Court stayed the criminal proceedings against the accused. The case will be taken up for further consideration on April 16.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE