A. N. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) EIGHT trucks loaded with calves from Kosi Kalan district Mathura and one truck similarly loaded from Kanpur were proceeding towards Bihar and on 12-12-95 when a Police Party headed by S. I Shiv Murti Singh was informed that they were loaded mercilessly and cruelly in those trucks without proper documents. He intercepted them at about 9. 00 p. m. within jurisdiction of his Police Station, namely, Akbarpur district Faizabad (Ambedkar) They were coming on a high speed and when the police party signalled them to stop, they tried to run away by increasing the speed but incidently railway crossing ahead was found closed and motor trucks had to stop there which were seized by the chasing Police party. It was found that those trucks were loaded with 44, 44, 42, 42, 34, 27, 27, 29 and 27 calves, respectively, in all 325 calves. On checking it was found that the trucks neither had proper documents of their registration etc. nor there was any certificate or licence or any medical certificate that these calves were fit to be slaughtered. They were found mercilessly and cruelly stacked almost like goods in the said trucks. Accordingly, the Police party seized the said trucks and the calves and a Case Crime No. 514 of 1995 u/s. 11 (d) of U. P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/8 U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. ( 2 ) SRI Bal Gangadhar Tripathi who is petitioner No. 1before me, although an Advocate by profession based at Faizabad but is engaged in advancement of prevention of cruelty to animals. With the same mission Petitioner No. 2 Bhola Nath is working at Faizabad. They have set up an Organization known by the name of "go Vansh Evam Go Sanrakshana Sanvardhan Parishad. " These calves were given in the supurdgi of Petitioner No. 1. The case is still under investigation. Some of the persons were owners of the trucks as well as calves loaded therein and in some cases owners of the trucks and the calves were different persons. All of them applied before learned Magistrate for release of the trucks as well as of the calves. Both the petitioners requested the learned Magistrate to give them opportunity of hearing which was granted. All of them applied before learned Magistrate for release of the trucks as well as of the calves. Both the petitioners requested the learned Magistrate to give them opportunity of hearing which was granted. After hearing the applicants and the petitioners, the learned Magistrate rejected the release applications. Thereafter, those owners filed revisions before learned Sessions Judge which are pending. In those revisions, the two petitioners applied for an opportunity of hearing but the same has been rejected by him by means of the impugned order dated 10-1-96. Now, the petitioners in keeping with their mission have approached this Court u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. by filing this petition. ( 3 ) A perusal of the order of learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad shows that he held that under Section 301 Cr. P. C. the persons who are neither complainants nor accused before the Court, have any right of hearing and in any case since neither any inquiry, trial or appeal was pending, the petitioners could not be heard. He also observed that in criminal cases it is the Government which has to protect rights of the citizens and for the purposes of criminal machinery since the Government has appointed Public Prosecutors, it was not necessary to hear the petitioners. ( 4 ) THE animals are national assets. They are not only essential for the human living as they provide milk etc. but they help in maintaining ecological balance, even they help in maintaining proper environment. Although the different Legislatures have passed enactments for prevention of cruelty to animals but the Government machinery and Governmental efforts by themselves are not sufficient and therefore, the voluntary organizations have definitely an important role to play in the matter. It is very rare to find any private citizen approaching a Court of law for prevention of cruelty to animals. In fact, it is voluntary organizations and the persons having zeal and mission who come to Court and bring the matter to the notice of the Court or to the notice of the appropriate Governmental authorities. Thus, these matters are in the nature of public interest litigation although the cases may be tried or concluded largely within the frame work of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such matters to deny a right of hearing to the voluntary organization would be unjust and improper. Thus, these matters are in the nature of public interest litigation although the cases may be tried or concluded largely within the frame work of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such matters to deny a right of hearing to the voluntary organization would be unjust and improper. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in the case (in which I was also a Member) Vishwa Hindu Adhivakta Sangh v. Union of India 1993 LCD 112 (Paragraph 62), observed that in matters of larger public interest the Court must hear those persons who are vitally interested in the outcome of those cases. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri, (1995) 1 SCC 189 held that any person representing Hindu community challenging exemption granted under Section 12 of West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act to cow slaughtering on Bakri Id day, has a locus standi to be heard in the matter. Further, under Article 48 of the Constitution in Part-IV relating to Directive Principles of State Policy, it has been provided that the State shall have endeavour to prohibit the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. These matters cannot be decided just by narrowly interpreting Section 301 Cr. P. C. Even if Section 301 in strict terms may not be applicable to the facts of the case yet being almost in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and the petitioners being vitally interested in the same it would be just and proper to permit them to have a hearing in the revision because apart from other things in such matters the prosecution or accused may not bring forth all the relevant facts in order to escape from clutches of law and therefore, voluntary organizations which are represented by the petitioners should be heard by the Courts. ( 5 ) IN the result, this petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. is allowed. Order dated 10-1-96 passed by learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad is hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be heard in the revisions pending before him. It is made clear that the learned Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by any observations made in this judgement so far as merits of the revisions pending before him are concerned. Sessions Judge, Faizabad is hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be heard in the revisions pending before him. It is made clear that the learned Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by any observations made in this judgement so far as merits of the revisions pending before him are concerned. ( 6 ) COPY of this judgement shall be furnished to the petitioners as well as to the learned Government Advocate free of costs, within five days. ( 7 ) THE Registrar is directed to circulate a copy of this judgement to all the Courts in Uttar Pradesh for their guidance. Petition allowed. .