- Written by hindustan times
- Hits: 311
A video of the act, showing the killing of dog with a rifle, was widely shared on social media platforms.
Hours after a video showing a man killing a dog with a gunshot went viral online, police arrested the pet’s owner and his friend in Badbar village of Dhanaula area of Barnala district. The pit bull’s owner Satbir Singh, 32, said the dog was “unstable and imbalanced for the past two days” and thus had to be killed. Both were released on bail later, confirmed sub-inspector Darshan Singh; and the dog’s post-mortem was ordered.
The matter escalated and was traced after an email by an animal rights organisation, named Fauna Police, to Union minister for women and child development Maneka Gandhi, the Punjab director general of police (DGP), and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). Contents of that email are part of the FIR.
Managing trustee of Fauna Police, Abhinav Srihan of Delhi, said over the phone, “We submitted the complaint to the AWBI with ample proofs.” Puneet Banga of Patiala had contacted the NGO. He said, “I had taken up the matter with the office of Maneka Gandhi. A dog cannot be exterminated on petty grounds. Such animals should be sterilised, or be kept in a kennel.”
Owner Satbir argued, “The dog was fiercely biting for the last two days. It had attacked my buffalo. It had become extremely dangerous to kids. Remember, it was my pet dog! Why will I kill my own dog?” Asked if he consulted a vet, he said, “I did not know if that was to be done.”
About the video shot two days ago, in which Satbir and his friend Ajit Singh, purportedly in his 60s, can be seen, Satbir said, “I do not know who uploaded the video on social media sites.”
Meanwhile, deputy director of the animal husbandry department, Dr Vinay Jindal, said it is the first case of post-mortem of a dog at the veterinary hospital in Barnala. A board of three doctors was constituted for the post-mortem. Dr Krishan Kumar, a member of the board, said, “We have taken samples of liver, kidney, spleen and heart of the dog. We will send its brain sample to Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (GADVASU), Ludhiana.”
Police said it is the first such FIR in the jurisdiction of Dhanaula station. Senior superintendent of police Harjeet Singh said, “The accused have stated that the dog was harmful for the inhabitants. We have registered a case under section 429 (killing an animal) of the Indian Penal Code and section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.”
- Written by Anando Das Gupta
- Hits: 321
A group of ladies in Gurgaon have been facing constant harassment for looking after strays in their locality and the police have been turning a blind eye. My friend who is also a lawyer decided to take up their cause. It finally came in the papers as to how the police has been turning a blind eye towards it.
- Written by PRESS TRUST OF INDIA
- Hits: 273
New Delhi, Nov 29 (PTI) The Delhi High Court today refused to grant an interim stay on a plea challenging the Centre's new Rule to regulate dog breeders by bringing them under the ambit of a law to check cruelty to animals.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar issued notice to the Centre and the Animal Welfare Board of India, while refusing to stay the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Dog Breeding and Marketing) Rules, saying it would tantamount to allowing the writ petition.
The Centre had in May this year introduced rules to regulate dog breeders, aquarium owners and livestock markets by bringing them under the ambit of a law to check cruelty to animals.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) had issued a series of notifications under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Under the new rules, it will be mandatory for all dog breeders and their establishments to register themselves with the state Animal Welfare Boards.
"Without hearing the respondent, we won't stay it," the bench said and listed the matter for March 19 next year.
The petition, filed by Delhi-based NGO 'Pet Right and Care Association', claimed that "the Rules delve circuitously into the sphere of animal husbandry".
"The Rules, 2017 is wholly unreasonable and has no reasonable relation to the object of the principal Act, in so much as the Rules, brings under the rubric of breeders, completely different and distinct occupations, while also regimenting a uniform set of rules for such varied breeds of dogs in a manner which is highly unreasonable and myopic," the plea has said.
Page 11 of 210