Ahmedabad Court Sentences Meat Shop Owner to 8 Years in Jail for Illegal Beef Possession

An Ahmedabad Sessions Court has sentenced a local meat shop owner to eight years' simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2 lakh after convicting him for the illegal possession and sale of beef.

The court convicted Ansar Qureshi in connection with a 2021 case registered in Vatva, while acquitting two co-accused due to lack of admissible evidence.

Police Raid Conducted in Vatva in 2021

The case dates back to May 16, 2021, when a police surveillance squad carried out a raid at a commercial premises in Sartajnagar area of Vatva.

During the operation, officers allegedly found approximately 12 kilograms of meat stored in a refrigerator at the shop premises.

The accused, Ansar Qureshi, was arrested following the seizure.

FSL Analysis Confirmed Meat Was Beef

According to the prosecution, samples of the seized meat were sent for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).

The laboratory subsequently analysed the tissue samples and, through DNA profiling, identified the substance as bovine meat.

The prosecution relied heavily on the forensic findings to establish the nature of the seized material before the court.

Court Rejects Defence Arguments

During the trial, the defence argued that the prosecution had failed to establish documentary proof of ownership of the shop from where the meat was seized.

The defence also pointed out that independent witnesses cited by the prosecution had turned hostile during the proceedings.

However, the court rejected these submissions, observing that the relevant law penalises conscious possession of prohibited meat irrespective of whether the premises are owned, rented or occupied in any other manner by the accused.

The court further observed that police testimony could not be discarded solely because independent local witnesses had declined to support the prosecution's case.

Two Co-Accused Acquitted

The court acquitted co-accused Saddam Rataniya and Barkatunnisha Qureshi of all charges.

According to the judgment, the prosecution case against the two was based solely on custodial confessional statements, which are inadmissible as evidence under Indian law.