Leo : Our Report

In September 2006, a troupe of theatre performers went to perform a play at Uma Gallery, 2/4 Sarat Bose Road. Mr. and Mrs. Vinod Malani, who have been tenants at that address since 1956, had been keeping a golden retriever named Leo (born 1999) in extremely shocking conditions. The troupe saw that Leo was chained and kept on a narrow flight of stairs. The steps were so narrow that the dog had to lie across three steps. As a result, the dog’s legs were damaged. In addition, Leo had sores all over his body. Sarat Bose Road was flooded and Leo was kept chained outside even in that flood. His legs were submerged in the water.

The theatre performers called in a doctor to treat Leo. Following their lead, some students of Jadavpur University saw the dog and spoke to Mr. Malani regarding the ill-treatment of the dog. Mr. Malani told them that they had been keeping Leo like that ever since they adopted Leo in 1999. He also said that the dog is never allowed inside the house. The students found out that as the Malanis are vegetarians they had been keeping Leo only on a diet of milk, rice, chapattis and paneer. Vegetarian food items high in protein were absent from Leo’s diet. The dog had become extremely fat and unhealthy because of a lack of exercise as he was constantly chained to a pillar or on the staircase. He did not respond to his name and never wagged his tail. This led the students to assume that the dog had minimal human contact. Mr. Malani told them that he kept the dog as a guard dog and when the students informed him that golden retrievers are not guard dogs he told them that he realised this now but the reason why he had adopted a golden retriever was because previously he had an Alsatian named Tiger who was very furious whenever let loose. The students assumed this was because the Alsatian was also kept chained like Leo all the time and had thus developed an irritable nature.

The students lodged a complaint with the CSPCA in November as the Malanis were in direct violation of 11f, 11h, 29(1) and 29 as a whole of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The CSPCA officials assured them that they would look into the matter immediately and if the dog was being kept as we reported they would take away the dog from the Malanis and keep him in their dog shelter. However, the CSPCA never did this and whenever the students asked them what action they were taking, they kept on saying that they would look into the matter after a week or two. Fed up by the inaction of the CSPCA, the students went and lodged a complaint with the local police station (Ballygunge Police Station). The police (Sub Inspector Soumya Thakur) summoned Mr. Malani to the police station and told him that he was performing certain illegal deeds by keeping the dog as he was. Mr. Malani assured SI Thakur and the students that he would not keep the dog chained, would keep the dog in a garage, and appoint a dog handler to exercise the dog. However he went back on some of his promises. Instead of keeping the golden retriever in a large enough room, he built a cage approximately 6 ft by 2 ft in size and kept the dog in there. He admitted that the dog was let out for 10 minutes in the morning, 10 in the afternoon and 10 in the evening and was let loose in the compound from about 10 pm to 6am. Though the dog was much healthier thanks to getting minimal yet some exercise and being kept unchained and not being kept on a narrow staircase which damaged his legs, the dog was not being given a proper diet and didn’t have access to water at all times. Also, his food was left out in the open for long hours so that it became fly infested. The cage being open on three sides was also not sheltering the dog from the damp, heat and the rains. On being asked why Mr. Malani was torturing the dog and not letting him go, he re-iterated that he kept the dog as a security dog and not as a family dog. Instead of hiring a security guard like his neighbours, he wanted to keep a security dog (This despite the fact that a security guard is also present at the main gate leading up to his house). On being requested to let the dog go, he said he might and would adopt an Alsatian next instead of a family dog like a golden retriever. However, his means of keeping dogs – not allowing the dog inside the house, locking up the dog, allowing the dog to have minimal human contact and general ill-treatment of the dog – makes the students believe that he will ill-treat any dog he keeps in the future.

Indrani Laha, Joint Secretary of Friends of Dogs and an animal lover (she takes in stray and abandoned dogs and cats and finds homes for them or keeps them in her home when she is not able to re-home them), also looked into the matter and found out that Leo was being subject to extreme ill-treatment.

They went to the police station again in July and told SI Soumya Thakur that Mr. Malani had not kept the promises that he had made. SI Thakur told Mr. Malani to either take better care of the dog or to let him go. One of the students is also willing to take in the dog in her house. On 17.7.2007 in a meeting at Ballygunge PS, Mr. Malani agreed to keep Leo in a room of at least 12 ft by 12 ft in size, give him a proper diet including proteins, make water readily available to him, ensuring sufficient human contact.

There is also a lot of discrepancy between the statements he makes in front of the police and otherwise. For instance, in course of the last meeting he denied ever having promised to keep the dog in a refurbished garage or appoint a trainer. He also alleged that the students were biased and were harassing him and pressurising him. Both Mr and Mrs Malani keep asserting that he is a heart patient and is falling ill because we are trying to take the dog away. They also requested the students to not come to the police with their grievances but to directly ask him. However, from earlier experience, we have learnt that he dismisses the requests as not possible for him to implement and however he is treating the dog is the best that he can do.

Given Mr. Malani’s previous track record, the well-wishers of Leo believe that Mr. Malani will never allow dogs inside his house and will always ill-treat them. Even if he gives away Leo, he will adopt another dog (probably an Alsatian) and subject the dog to the same ill-treatment again. The well-wishers of Leo are trying to re-home Leo (one of the students is already willing to adopt Leo) and also to prevent Mr. Malani from adopting dogs in the future and keeping security guards instead. The students also believe that this is financially feasible for the Malanis because they own three cars (one Hyundai santro, one Ford aikon and one Tata indigo).

PCA Act : http://www.bluecross.org.in/PCAact.html#Chapter%20III%20-%20Cruelty%20To%20Animals%20Generally

11.1 b:

*(employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease) infirmity, wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed or, being the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be employed

11.1 e:

Keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement

11.1 f:

Keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord

11.1 g:

Being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog habitually chained up or kept in close confinement

11h:

Being the owner of (any animal) fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter

29: Power of court to deprive person convicted of ownership of animal

(1) If the owner of any animal is found guilty of any offence under this Act, the court upon his conviction thereof, may, if it thinks fit, in addition to any other punishment make an order that the animal with respect to which the offence was committed shall be forfeited to Government and may, further, make such order as to the disposal of the animal as it thinks fit under the circumstances.

(2) No order under sub section (1) shall be made unless it is shown by evidence as to a previous conviction under this Act or as to the character of the owner or otherwise as to the treatment of the animal that the animal if left with the owner, is likely to be exposed to further cruelty

(3) without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the court may also order that a person convicted of an offence under this Act shall, either permanently or during such period as is fixed by the order, be prohibited from having the custody of any animal of any kind whatsoever, or as the court thinks fit of any animal of any kind or species specified in the order

(4) No order under sub-section (3) shall be made unless-

(a) it is shown by evidence as to a previous conviction or as to the character of the said person or otherwise as to the treatment of the animal in relation to which he has been convicted that an animal in the custody of the said person is likely to be exposed to cruelty;

(b) it is stated in the complaint upon which the conviction was made that it is the intention of the complaint upon the conviction of the accused to request that an order be made as aforesaid and

(c) the offence for which the conviction was made was committed in an area in which under the law for the time being in force a license is necessary for the keeping of any such animal as that in respect of which the conviction was made

(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any person in respect of whom an order is made under sub-section (3) shall have no right to the custody of any animal contrary to the provisions of the order, and if he contravenes the provisions of any order, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both

(6) Any court which has made an order under sub-section (3) may at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, rescind or modify such order