MUMBAI: In the first conviction for feeding pigeons after the Bombay high court ban this July, a metropolitan magistrate court in Bandra has found a 52-year-old Dadar businessman guilty of feeding pigeons in a public place, holding that the act posed a risk to public health and violated government orders.Additional chief judicial magistrate V U Misal of the 9th court, Bandra, on Dec 22 convicted Dadar resident Nitin Sheth, under Section 223(b) and 271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which deals with the offence of disobeying a lawful order from a public servant and act likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, and imposed a fine of Rs 3,000 and Rs 2,000 on these two counts.
On Aug 1, the police had registered a criminal case against Sheth for feeding pigeons near the kabutarkhana on LJ Road, close to Hinduja Hospital. Police stated that the act endangered human life, health and safety and was likely to contribute to the spread of diseases.The magistrate said, “Your act has caused danger to human life, health or safety and violated the orders of the government and thereby an offence punishable.” The court further said, “You unlawfully or negligently did the above act which you know or have reason to believe to be likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life.”Feeding of pigeons in public places in Mumbai was banned and considered illegal due to public health risk. In July, the high court ordered action against feeding in public areas. There is a strong divide between public health advocates (supporting the ban) and bird lovers and certain communities who see feeding as a duty, creating political friction.The case was registered at the Mahim police station and within a month the police submitted a chargesheet against Sheth. During the proceedings, Sheth pleaded guilty to the charges. In his application to the court, he stated that his plea was voluntary and sought leniency. Accepting the plea, the court observed that considering the nature of the offence, a monetary penalty would suffice and accordingly imposed the fine.
Leave a Reply