by Senaka Weeraratna

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Statutory Predecessor

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  The statutory predecessor of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance No.13 of 1907, is the Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, No.7 of 1862

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Section 1 of this Ordinance (No.7 of 1862) was the basis upon which those accused of cruelty to animals were charged.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Hussain’s complete Digest of Case Law of Sri Lanka (1820 – 2000) cites several instances where charges were laid under this Ordinance (No.7 of 1862) for causing cruelty to Animals.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  One of the shortcomings of the 1862 statute was the failure to empower a Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment as a form of punishment.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  He was restricted to imposing only a fine. [1]

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  The anti-cruelty statute of 1862 was replaced by the Ordinance No.13 of 1907, which has a wider applicability.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Though the crime is still regarded as cruelty to animals, this statute uses broader language such as ‘causing unnecessary pain or suffering’ to any animal by any act or omission, or ‘using animals unfit for labour’ or allowing an animal to suffer pain by reason of starvation, mutilation, or other ill-treatment” without relying exclusively on a general term such as ‘cruelty’.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Defects

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance No.13 of 1907 is a short statute comprising 14 Sections running into 3 pages.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  It has a number of deficiencies:

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Inspector, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Nawalapitiya

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The definition of ‘animal’ in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance No.13 of 1907 stands in marked contrast to the definition of ‘Animal’ in Section 46 of the Penal Code No. 2 of 1883 where the word ‘animal’ is defined as any living creature other than a human being, unless the contrary appear from the context”ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  [3]

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Section 2 imposes a penalty which is a fine which may extend to Rs.100/- or imprisonment up to 3 months or with both.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The definition of ‘cruelty’ in Section 2 is inadequate in its scope.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  It needs to be broadened.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Low monetary penalty

Further, the fine of Rs.100/- is a ridiculously low amount and hardly acts as a deterrent in today’s context.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  There has been no change in the quantum of the monetary penalty since 1907.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  There is no reported case of an offender being given a sentence of imprisonment for causing cruelty to an animal.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The inadequacy of the penalty was highlighted in a case that was brought before the MagistrateƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Court in Kandy a few years ago.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In February 1999, an alert Sub-Inspector of Police in Kandy seized 137 head of cattle that were being transported illegally in excessively over-crowded conditions in 4 lorries. The animals comprised cows (including pregnant cows) and buffaloes.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Three of the animals were dead inside the lorries.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Two died later. A few of the animals were sent to the Veterinary Hospital, as they were ill.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The owners of the vehicles were charged in the Kandy court for violating Section 2 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, 1907, by transporting the animals in such a manner as to subject them to unnecessary pain or suffering. Though there was substantial evidence of cruelty, the presiding judge was able to fine the offenders not more than Rs.100/-.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  The judge further ordered the Police to release the animals back to the defendants.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The court also dismissed an application made by several organizations, such as the Kandy Humanitarian Society and the Buddhist group, “SUCCESS SRI LANKA”, to enter the proceedings through their lawyers as an interested third party, to save the defenseless animals.[4]

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Inhumane killing

Section 4 imposes a penalty for killing animals with unnecessary cruelty.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Though there has been widespread public agitation in Sri Lanka from time to time against inhumane methods of slaughter, yet such protests have so far not resulted in animal welfare societies invoking the provisions of Section 4 to prevent methods of ritual slaughter, i.e. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”dhabhƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ method, that have been widely condemned in many parts of the world as unnecessarily cruel.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In most “western” countries, which have a reputation for liberal values and human rights-e.g. Sweden, Norway, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands – the ritual slaughter of animals is prohibited on ground of unnecessary cruelty, despite stiff opposition from the powerful Jewish lobby, which favours this method (called ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…” ShechitabƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ by Jews). The most objectionable aspect of this method is the bleeding of the animals slowly to death while they are fully conscious.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The European countries have adopted a common sense approach. When there is a modern painless way to slaughter, why adhere to an ancient and outdated practice that was found accepted as the best method 1400 years ago ?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Infirmaries

Section 6 of this Ordinance empowers the Minister to appoint infirmaries for the treatment of animals.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ There are no available reports of the Minister having exercised such power to appoint infirmaries to treat such animals.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Limitation of time

Section 8 imposes a limitation of time for commencing the prosecution within 3 months of the date of the committing of the offence.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  This period of time is considered inadequate.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  A longer period, say 6 -12 months would enable the Police to gather the necessary evidence prior to laying a charge.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Power of Animal Welfare Societies to conduct prosecutions

Section 11 impliedly recognizes the power of any Officer of any Society established in Sri Lanka for the prevention of cruelty to animals to conduct prosecutions and recover fines (with the ‘gazetted’ approval of the Minister of Finance and the Minister administering the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance).

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This is a very important Section as several animal rights activists have solicited advice whether they could in the name of their Societies institute legal proceedings against offenders of this statute.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The answer is in the affirmative.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  There are two judgments reported in the New Law Reports where the Inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was a party to the proceedings as the complainant:

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 1)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Inspector, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Nawalapitiya v. Punchirala & others (1922) 24 NLR 202

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 2)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Abeysekera v. Goonewardene (1938) 39 NLR 525

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Note:

This statutory power granted to a Society to launch independent prosecutions appears not to have been used in the post -independence period.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  There is no reported case law.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Private Plaints

Section 136(1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No.15 of 1979 allows a private individual the right to commence proceedings before a Magistrate’s Court in respect of an offence that has been committed which such Magistrate Court has jurisdiction either to inquire into or try.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Note:ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  This avenue of private complaints to the Magistrate in respect of abuse of animals has hardly been made use of in the post – independence period.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In the event a registered Animal Welfare Society decides to take an offender to court directly, then the procedure to be adopted has to be by way of a private plaint.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  (Section 136 (1) (a) of CCP Act).

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This avenue stands in marked contrast to the position in several ‘western’ countries-e.g. Australia,- where animal welfare organizations, such as the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), are empowered under the relevant legislation to lodge complaints and initiate legal proceedings against offenders.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Summary

The existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance has been found deficient in the following areas:

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ i)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  lack of broader coverage of animal welfare issues

ii)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  protection of animals limited to animals, domestic or captured, and animals in captivity

iii)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  limited number of animal cruelty offences

iv)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  lack of regulation of

i)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  use of animals in scientific research

ii)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Transport of animals

iii)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  exhibition and training of performing animals

iv)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  breeding of poultry

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ v)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  inadequate power of the police to enforce the law

vi)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  inadequate period of time for making a police complaint after the commission of the offence i.e. 3 months

vii)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  low monetary penalties to have any deterrent effect. Maximum fine is Rs.100 which may extend to Rs.200 in the case of a second or subsequent offence.

viii)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  absence of a proper authority to administer the legislation.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ A Complement to the Criminal Law

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, No.13 of 1907 has the characteristics of a penalty statute (though its penalties hardly act as deterrents today) that enable the statute to function as a complement to the criminal law.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The major difference between this Ordinance and Criminal Law statutes is that there are few prosecutions under this Ordinance, and fewer convictions that are upheld on appeal. In the few instances where convictions are secured, punishments are disproportionately light.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  This aversion to mete out stiff penalties to animal offenders is largely due to the reluctance of the legal system to penalise someone for the way in which he uses his property.