JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. N. S. Khubalkar, A.P.P. for respondent. 2. By this application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant seeks quashing of F.I.R. lodged against him at Police Station Relegaon, District: Yavatmal, vide Crime No.3055/2006 dated 29.7.2006, for the offences punishable under section 11(1)(l)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act read with section 66, read with section 192 and section 83 read with 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The first information report lodged by Manohar Bomate of Relegaon against Rahim Khan, alleges that on 29.7.2006, he found one truck taking away 22 animals for slaughtering. When he and his friends questioned the driverRahim Khan and conductor-Muktyar of the said vehicle told that the said animals were being taken to Adilabad for slaughtering and they were owned by one Gabber Qureshi (applicant) of Ralegaon. It is alleged that when they saw these cattle, they noticed that they were brutally tied up by rope and they seemed to have been severely beaten. Thereafter, the said report was lodged and the aforesaid offences were registered. 3. This first information report is sought to be quashed on the ground that the said offences are non-cognizable and they can not be investigated without prior permission fro the concerned Magistrate. The relief claimed besides this is, restoration of cattle to the applicant. 4. It may be stated that the chargesheet has been filed against one Abdul Rahim (Driver) and the Conductor of the said truck, for the offences mentioned above before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamb. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the offences alleged against the applicant are non-cognizance offences. He has specifically relied on the provisions of sections 11(1)(l)(n) and 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act [For short Act] to contend that the offences alleged against the applicant being not under section 11(1)(l)(n) and (O) or under section 12 of the Act, are noncognizable and therefore, without permission of the Magistrate, the same cannot be investigated, nor any charge-sheet can be filed. He has strongly relied on the provision of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and some of the judgments of this court particularly in 2001(1) M.L.J. 246 : 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1646 (Shivanand Giridhar Naik, Head Constable Vs. He has strongly relied on the provision of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and some of the judgments of this court particularly in 2001(1) M.L.J. 246 : 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1646 (Shivanand Giridhar Naik, Head Constable Vs. Senior Inspector of Police, Bhiwandi Taluka and another), unreported judgment of this court in Criminal Application no.3368 of 2003 [Bukaran & Babulal Vs. State of Maharashtra and MANU/MH/0633/2006 : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3021] (Vithal Puna Koli (Shirsath) and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra), to contend that when the offences alleged are non-cognizable, the police officer cannot investigate the offence without prior permission of the Magistrate and if it is done so, the investigation and the prosecution, would be vitiated. It is his case that the offences alleged against the applicant are not under section 11(1) clauses (l)(n)(o) or under section 12 and therefore, in view of section 31 of the said Act, the offences would be non-cognizable. In these circumstances, he submits that the first information report lodged against the applicant and other accused needs to be quashed, so also charge-sheet which is filed in consequent to the investigation, without permission from the Magistrate. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the respondent has contended that the reading of first information report discloses the cognizable offences. He has also submitted that even if it is assumed that the offences are non-cognizable, in view of the unreported judgment of this court in Criminal Application No.3368/2003 (Nilaram & Babulal Vs. State of Maharashtra) this court in the event of quashing of the investigation carried out by the police in the aforesaid offence, may direct the concerned police station to proceed as per section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant. 7. Here is the case where the report has been lodged for the offences referred to above. It is true that the alleged offences are non-cognizable and therefore, before investigation, permission of the magistrate was required and as the permission was not obtained, the investigation and consequent filling of the charge-sheet would be bad in view of section 155 of Cr.P.C. 8. In the case in hand the question would be whether the charge-sheet in the present case is required to be quashed. In the case in hand the question would be whether the charge-sheet in the present case is required to be quashed. Charge-sheet clearly appears to be for the offence under section 11(1)(l)(n)(d) of the Act, read with sections 66/192 and 83/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further necessary to note that the animals were-three bullocks of aged between 12-15 years, three she buffaloes aged between 10-12 years, six cows aged between 5-7 years, five calfs aged between 2-4 years, young bullock aged 2 year and 4 he buffaloes aged between 2-4 years, in all 22 animals. It is necessary to bear in mind that these 22 animals were being carried in a truck and were having allegedly injuries on their person. It was also disclosed that the said driver had no permit to carry cattle and he did not possess any document regarding ownership of the said cattle. It is apparent that there is clear evidence in the charge-sheet & documents, that the animals were being carried for slaughtering. 9. Learned counsel has tried to contend that the same were not being carried for slaughtering in Andhra Pradesh, but they were being carried only for the purpose of sale. 10. Here the vehicle seized appears to be bearing registration number of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, ex-facie, it appears that the said cattle were being carried to Andhra Pradesh. 11. It is obvious from the allegations that the said cattle were being carried for slaughtering purpose and some of the' cattle were from the progeny of cow. Therefore, ex-facie it appears that provisions of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 may be attracted. There appears no sound 'reason to hold at this stage that the provisions of that Act would not be applicable, as even offering cow for slaughtering is also prohibited under section 5 of the said Act. 12. It goes without saying if the charge-sheet is quashed, the question as to whether any offence under Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act is made out or not, cannot be considered by the learned Trial Judge. It too is an important aspect of the matter. 13. 12. It goes without saying if the charge-sheet is quashed, the question as to whether any offence under Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act is made out or not, cannot be considered by the learned Trial Judge. It too is an important aspect of the matter. 13. In this view of the matter; though the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant refer to the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act, and consequent investigation into the non-cognizable offence; without permission of the Magistrate, the same will not be attracted as possibility of there being a cognizable offence under the provisions of Maharashtra Animals Preservation Act can not be ruled out and all there aspects need to be decided by the learned trial Judge. 14. Therefore, this application will attract dismissal however; while dismissing the application, liberty will have to be grated to the applicant to move the learned trial Judge for appropriate reliefs including that of discharge. 15. With these observations; this application stands disposed of. Application dismissed.