ORDER : U.C. Banjerjee, J. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in its revisional jurisdiction did not find any material to lend its concurrence with the findings of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2000 and as such dismissed the petition and by reason of such an order of dismissal, the appellant moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 2. At this juncture, it would be convenient to advert to the prosecution case briefly and which runs as below: the respondent herein was found transporting cattle in a truck bearing Registration No. UP 78 N 1437. The truck, however, was checked on the route and it was found that 19 cattle were being carried in the truck, who were not being treated well and there was no provision of water and food for the animals in the truck. Thereupon, the Station House Officer of Police Station Budhar made a report and got the animals medically examined by a Veterinary Surgeon. It has been alleged by the prosecutor that the animals were not in a healthy condition and they were found to have sustained abrasions on their bodies. 3. After completion of investigation, a challan was filed against the applicant by the police before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Budhar, under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (in short "the Act") and also under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. It appears that the applicant admitted his guilt before the trial Magistrate and, therefore, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under Section 11 of the Act and further to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The trial Magistrate, however, has also ordered that the animals seized from the custody of the applicant shall be liable to be confiscated under Section 29 of the Act. 6. The appeal filed by the applicant against the aforesaid order of the trial Magistrate regarding confiscation of the animals, however, was rejected by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge and thus a further revisional petition before the High Court. The High Court in turn, however, negated the contention as regards the applicability of Section 29 of the Act and thus the State's appeal before this Court. 7. The High Court in turn, however, negated the contention as regards the applicability of Section 29 of the Act and thus the State's appeal before this Court. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions as raised by Mr Bhachawat in support of the appeals, Section 29 ought to be adverted to at this stage. 8. Section 29 reads as below: "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." 9. Section 29(1) undoubtedly confers jurisdiction on the court, in the event the offender stands convicted, to pass an order of forfeiture of the animals in favour of the Government. But on a close scrutiny of the language used therein, Section 29(1) stands appears to be restricted and subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) noticed hereinbefore. 10. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 specifically lays down three specific conditions without which applicability thereof would not arise. The same being: (a) it is shown by evidence as to a previous conviction; or (b) as to the character of the owner or otherwise as to the treatment of the animal; or (c) that the animal, if left with the owner, is likely to be exposed to further cruelty. 11. While it is true that there is a report by the Veterinary Surgeon that the animals were not in a healthy condition but there is not an iota of evidence as regards the third condition noticed in the body of the above noted sub-section (2). 12. 11. While it is true that there is a report by the Veterinary Surgeon that the animals were not in a healthy condition but there is not an iota of evidence as regards the third condition noticed in the body of the above noted sub-section (2). 12. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that in the absence of any material on record, question of sustaining the order of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge would not arise. The High Court dealt with the matter in a manner proper and we see no reason to record a contra finding in the contextual facts. 13. These appeals thus fail and are dismissed accordingly. Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court.