Cattle being transported without necessary documents cannot be taken as evidence that the animals were being slaughtered, the Supreme Court said yesterday. It came in a case under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, in which a man was convicted of transporting cattle that were said to be earmarked for slaughter.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran held that the prosecution should first establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offence before the statutory reverse burden can shift to the accused. The court made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Saurabh Bajaj, one of six people convicted in connection with the transportation of 32 bullocks.
What The Supreme Court Said About Cattle Transport
The case involved a truck carrying 32 bullocks from Keduwa towards Odisha. According to the prosecution, a head constable intercepted the vehicle after receiving information about the transportation. The cattle were seized and the truck's driver and cleaner were arrested.
A Bolero car travelling at the rear of the truck was also detained on the allegation that it was escorting the cattle-laden vehicle. Four people travelling in the car, including the appellant, were arrested.
The accused were then convicted under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act. They were sentenced under Section 10 to one year of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 1,000 each. The trial court's decision was upheld by the appellate courts and the High Court later reduced the sentence to the period already served.
The appellant then went to the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no evidence establishing that the cattle were being transported with an intention to slaughter them.
Section 6 Requires Evidence Of Slaughter Purpose
The Supreme Court considered the requirements of Section 6 of the Act. The provision is in terms of preparing cattle for slaughter or transportation with the knowledge that the cattle are likely to be slaughtered.
The bench said that simply assuming an intention to slaughter was not enough to establish an offence. A prosecution witness’s presumption about why the cattle were being transported could not replace evidence establishing the required elements of the offence.
The court therefore distinguished between a possible violation as missing transport documentation and proof of an offence relating specifically to transportation for slaughter.
The Supreme Court made clear in its ruling that the absence of documents cannot automatically establish the purpose for which cattle were being transported. Any consequences arising from a failure to comply with documentation requirements would have to follow under the relevant legal provision and could not automatically be converted into proof of an intention to slaughter.
Reverse Burden Under Section 11 Explained
One of the crucial points of the judgment related to Section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act which permits a reverse presumption in the circumstances provided by the law.
The Supreme Court emphasized that this reverse burden does not occur automatically whenever cattle are found being transported without documents. The prosecution needs first to establish the foundational facts and essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
Only when such requirements are established does the burden shift to the accused to explain or disprove the relevant circumstances.
The bench found that the prosecution had not established that the appellant knew the cattle were being transported for slaughter. So in fact, the reverse burden under Section 11 did not apply to him.
This meant that the absence of transport documents could not be used as a substitute for evidence proving the alleged slaughter-related offence.
Veterinary Evidence Also Featured In The Case
The Supreme Court also considered evidence relating to the condition and possible use of the seized cattle. A veterinary doctor and the president of a Gaushala committee had said the animals were fit and suitable for agricultural activities, including ploughing.
The evidence was relevant because the prosecution had to show that the cattle were being transported for slaughter or that the accused had the required knowledge about their intended use.
The court concluded there was no evidence to uphold the appellant’s conviction.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction
After investigating the evidence and the statutory provisions, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. The court also rejected the argument that the absence of transport documents could independently establish that the cattle were being taken for slaughter.
The judgment does not mean that transportation requirements under applicable laws can be ignored. Rather, it relates to the evidentiary requirement of establishing a specific offence under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act.
The key point from the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offence before relying on a statutory reverse burden. Missing documents alone cannot create an automatic presumption of an intention to slaughter.
The decision in *Saurabh Bajaj v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.* was delivered by the Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran on September 29, 2026.
