The Supreme Court has held that transporting cattle without supporting documents cannot, by itself, justify a presumption that the animals were being taken for slaughter. Setting aside a conviction under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, the Court clarified that the prosecution must establish the essential ingredients of the offence before the statutory reverse burden can operate against an accused.

The bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Saurabh Bajaj, who was among six persons convicted in connection with the transportation of 32 bullocks allegedly towards Odisha. The order was passed on September 29, 2026.

Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)

The prosecution alleged that a truck carrying 32 bullocks from Keduwa was proceeding towards Odisha when a Head Constable intercepted it after receiving information about the transportation.

The cattle were seized, and the truck’s driver and cleaner were arrested. Police also detained a Bolero car travelling ahead of the truck, alleging that it was escorting the vehicle carrying the cattle. Four occupants of the car, including Bajaj, were arrested.

The Trial Court convicted the accused for violating Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act and sentenced them under Section 10 to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000.

The First Appellate Court upheld the conviction. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, also maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Bajaj approached the Supreme Court specifically challenging his conviction.

The prosecution examined five witnesses, including a veterinary doctor, the Head Constable who intercepted the vehicles, two independent seizure witnesses, and the president of the Gaushala Committee entrusted with the cattle.

The veterinary doctor’s report stated that all the animals were fit and suitable for agricultural purposes, including ploughing. The president of the Gaushala Committee, Jogidadar, corroborated the evidence regarding their health.

The two independent seizure witnesses turned hostile, although they acknowledged their signatures on the seizure mahazar. Neither identified any of the accused.

The Supreme Court observed that the Head Constable’s evidence established the interception of the truck and seizure of the cattle. However, that evidence did not establish the further allegations necessary to sustain Bajaj’s conviction.

The Court found that there was “nothing substantial to prove that the Bolero car was escorting the truck.”

It also considered an argument raised by the truck driver before the Revisional Court that the occupants of the Bolero had hired the truck and owned the cattle. The Supreme Court noted that this contention had not been raised before the Trial Court or offered in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution’s proof of interception and seizure, therefore, did not establish the alleged escort arrangement or adequately connect Bajaj with the unlawful transportation alleged against him.

Explaining Section 6, the Supreme Court stated that the offence concerns transportation of cattle for slaughter or with knowledge that the cattle are likely to be slaughtered.

In the present case, the Court found no evidence establishing that purpose beyond the Head Constable’s presumption. The fact that cattle were being transported did not, on its own, prove the prohibited intention or knowledge.

The distinction was decisive: proof that cattle were found in a truck could not substitute for proof of the essential ingredients of the offence charged.

The High Court had referred to Section 11 of the Act, which places a reverse burden on the accused to establish that the slaughter or transportation of agricultural cattle did not violate the Act.

The Supreme Court clarified that this burden arises only after the prosecution proves the essential ingredients necessary to allege the offence before the Trial Court. Once those foundational facts are established, the accused must discharge the statutory burden.

The provision could not be used to overcome the prosecution’s failure to establish that the cattle were being transported for slaughter or with knowledge that they were likely to be slaughtered.

The Court expressly rejected the inference that an absence of transport documents established a slaughter purpose.

It observed that the mere fact that transportation was not accompanied by documents could not lead to a presumption that the cattle were being carried for slaughter.

The bench further explained that if the absence of documents violated another statute, the consequences must follow under that statute. Such a violation could not automatically support an assumption that the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act had been breached.

The Supreme Court found no reason to uphold Bajaj’s conviction, particularly when the veterinary doctor and Gaushala Committee president had categorically stated that the seized cattle were fit for agricultural use.

Allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the impugned revisional order and the orders of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in relation to the appellant.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Cheque Bounce Notice Received By Mother At Correct Address Presumed Served: Supreme Court