JUDGMENT : (1) Being aggrieved by the order dated 4 - 7 - 06 passed by vi th additional sessions judge, (fast track) , ujjain in cr. R. No. 211/06, whereby the application filed by the respondent no. 2 under section 451 of cr. Pc for giving the animals in supurdgi, which was allowed by learned jmfc, tarana, distt. Ujjain in criminal case no. 36/06, vide order dated 26 - 5 - 06 was modified, the present revision petition has been filed. (2) Short facts of the case are that the respondent no. 4 registered a case against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 under section 11 (1) (a) , (b) , (c) and (2) of prevention of cruelty to animals act, 1960 and under sections 3,4 and 9 of m. P. Govansh vadh pratishedh adhiniyam, 2004, on the ground that on 14 - 1 - 06 at about 10:15 p. M. It was found that 20 cattle were being transported in a truck bearing registration no. Mp. 13 - e/1148, cruelly for slaughtering purposes. Case of prosecution was that the driver of the truck who was transporting the cattle ran away, hence the animals and the truck was seized and after investigation the criminal case was registered against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under the act mentioned hereinabove. In the said criminal case an application was filed by the petitioner gopal goshala, through secretary, wherein it was prayed that the animals be given to the petitioner on supurdgi. Vide order dated 18 - 1 - 06 learned jmfc allowed the application filed by the petitioner holding that the criminal case will take time in its disposal and till then there is no arrangement for cattle food, therefore, animals be given in the custody of petitioner institute in supurdgi. Thereafter the accused persons respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein moved an application for recalling of the order dated 18 - 1 - 06 and to give the custody of the cattle to them alleging that the animals were purchased by them, therefore, the custody be given to them. Thereafter the accused persons respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein moved an application for recalling of the order dated 18 - 1 - 06 and to give the custody of the cattle to them alleging that the animals were purchased by them, therefore, the custody be given to them. This application was dismissed by the learned judicial magistrate, against which a criminal revision was filed by the accused respondents before the district and sessions court, which was allowed vide order dated 24 - 2 - 06 and the order of dismissal of application dated 30 - 1 - 06 was set aside with a further direction to the learned judicial magistrate to pass an appropriate order on the application filed by the accused respondents under section 457, cr. Pc keeping in view the law laid down by this court in that regard. (3) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the sessions court, whereby the case was remanded for disposal of the application of the accused persons for giving the animals in their custody a further revision was filed by the petitioner before this court, which was dismissed vide order dated 17 - 4 - 06 and the order dated 24 - 2 - 06 passed by learned sessions court was maintained, whereby the , case was remanded to the learned judicial magistrate for disposal of the application. In compliance of the order passed by sessions court vide order dated 24 - 2 - 06, which was confirmed by this court vide order dated 17 - 4 - 06, learned judicial magistrate disposed of the application vide order dated 26 - 5 - 06, whereby the application filed by the accused respondents for giving the animals in their custody was dismissed, against which a revision petition was filed by the accused persons before the learned revisional court. By the impugned order dated 4 - 7 - 06 learned revisional court allowed the revision petition with a direction to the petitioner to hand over the custody of animals upon furnishing adequate security supurdginama, it is this order which is under challenge before this court. (4) Mr. Manoj saxena, learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by learned revisional court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. (4) Mr. Manoj saxena, learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by learned revisional court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that from the fir it is evident that the respondents/accused were transporting the animals without any permit for slaughtering purposes and prima facie case was made out against the accused persons, therefore, learned sessions judge committed error in allowing the application and in giving the custody of the animals under supurdgi. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner is a charitable organization, which takes care of animals, the learned court below committed error in passing the impugned order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that learned court below while directing the petitioner to handover the animals did not bother for reimbursement of the amount of expenses and the labour which has been spent by a charitable institution. It is prayed that petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. (5) Shri g. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 supports the order impugned herein and submits that the said order is in accordance with law which calls no interference. (6) Section 457 of cr. Pc reads as under: - procedure by police upon seizure of property: - (1) whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a magistrate under the provisions of this code, and such property is not produced before a criminal court during an inquiry or trial, the magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) if the person so entitled is known, the magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. (7) Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the madhya pradesh govansh vadh pratishedh adhiniyam, 2004 reads as underlying: - section 4. Prohibition of slaughter of cow progeny. - no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered, for slaughter of any cow progeny. Section 6. Prohibition on transport of cow progeny for slaughter. - no person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cow progeny from any place within the state to any place outside the state, for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provision of this act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so slaughtered. Section 9. Penalties. - whoever contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of sections 4,5 and 6 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. (8) In the present case, custody of the cattle were given to the petitioner on supurdgi, who has not claimed any right of ownership over the property at the time of taking them in supurdgi. As a rule, it is not necessary to hear the supurdgidar in whose custody the property has been given, because the supurdgidar is having no interest in the property and also given an undertaking to keep the article given in custody present as and when directed by the court. (9) In the matter of gomukhi sewa dham vs. State of chhattisgarh, reported in 2005 (1) m. P. H. T. 1 (cg) , where the allegations against the accused was that the cattle were taken to the state of bihar for slaughtering, the same were handed over to gomukhi sewa dham and upon the application by the accused for the custody of the cattle, chhattisgarh high court has held that the accused persons have preferential right to have custody of cattle during pendency of trial. (10) In the matter of nabbu vs. State of m. P. , reported in 2005 (3) m. P. H. T. 348, where the prosecution was under the prevention of madhya pradesh krashak pashu parirakshan adhiniyam, 1959 and prevention of cruelty to animals laws repealing act, cattle were seized from the possession of accused and the allegation was that the cattle were being transported for slaughtering purposes which is prohibited under the law and the application for interim custody of seized cattle was refused, this court observed as under: - (a) that the seized cattle would be given to the applicant on his furnishing a supurdnama to the satisfaction ol the tna\ court. (b) the value of the cattle shall be ascertained by the trial court and according to the valuation the applicant would be required to furnish the solvents surety to the satisfaction of the trial court and this surety would be given by a local resident of the concerned district. (c) the applicant shall not remove those cattle beyond the jurisdiction of the police station , dhanora or keolari, district seoni. (d) the applicant shall be bound to submit weekly report relating to all cattle before the trial court. (e) during pendency of the trial the applicant would not be entitled to transfer the cattle in any manner. (11) In the matter of dayodaya pashusewa kendra, sagar vs. Islamuddin, reported in slp (criminal) no. 2238/01, vide order dated 12 - 4 - 02, Hon'ble apex court has observed as under: - the trial court passed the impugned orders as to custody of property pending trial in favour of the appellants. The accused - respondents preferred revision petitions in the high court. The high court has allowed the revisions and set aside the orders of trial court without issuing any notice to the appellants herein, in favour of whom the trial court had passed the orders for custody of the property, that is, the animals. The appellants are vitally interested in the preservation and custody of animals. More so, when the orders of the trial court were in favour of the appellants, the high court ought not have interfered with the orders of the trial court without giving notice to the appellants. The impugned orders of the high court are vitiated and suffer from jurisdictional error. (12) In the matter of state of u. P. Vs. More so, when the orders of the trial court were in favour of the appellants, the high court ought not have interfered with the orders of the trial court without giving notice to the appellants. The impugned orders of the high court are vitiated and suffer from jurisdictional error. (12) In the matter of state of u. P. Vs. Mustakeem, passed in criminal appeal no. 283 - 287/2002, vide order dated 22 - 2 - 02, Hon'ble apex court has observed as under: - the state of uttar pradesh is in appeal against the direction of the court directing release of the animals in favour of the owner. It is alleged that while those animals were registered for alleged violation of the provisions of prevention of cruelty to animals act, 1960, and the specific allegation in the fir was that the animals were transported for being slaughtered, and the animals were tied very tightly to each other. The criminal case is still pending. On an appeal for getting the custody of the animals was filed, the impugned order has been passed. We are shocked as to how such an order could be passed by the learned judge of the high court in view of the very allegations and in view of the charges, which the accused may face in the criminal trial. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct that these animals be kept in the goshala and the state government undertakes to take the entire responsibility of the preservation of those animals so long as the matter is under trial. (13) Article 48 of the constitution of India, which finds place in chapter iv lays down that: - "the state shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. " (14) It is in pursuance to this article of directive principle that acts like the madhya pradesh agricultural cattle preservation act, 1959 and m. P. Govansh vadh pratishedh adhiniyam, 2004, prevention of cruelty to animals act, 1960 etc. Has came in force. The object of the act is to provide in the interest of general public and to maintain communal harmony and peace, for prohibition of slaughter of cow progeny and for matters connected therewith. Has came in force. The object of the act is to provide in the interest of general public and to maintain communal harmony and peace, for prohibition of slaughter of cow progeny and for matters connected therewith. (15) As per section 7 of the madhya pradesh govansh vadh pratishedh adhiniyam, 2004, the state government is bound to take necessary steps for strengthening of institutions which are engaged in welfare activities of cow progeny. (16) Legally speaking, the position of petitioner in law is that of a bailee. Recourse therefore can be taken to section 170 of the indian contract act, 1972 lays down bailee's particular lien which reads as follows: - "where the bailee has, in accordance with the purpose of the bailment, rendered any service involving the exercise of labour or skill in respect of the goods bailed, he has, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a right to retain such goods until he receives due remuneration for the services he has rendered in respect of them. " (17) The section is nothing but expression of common law principle that if man has an article delivered to him, on the improvement of which, he has to bestow trouble and expenses, he has a right to detain it until his demands is paid. (18) It is true that petitioner is an institution in whose custody the cattle were given in supurdgi and having no other right title or interest in the property except to preserve, but since it was the live property herein, which were given in custody to the petitioner institution which is a charitable institution, and dependents upon the donations made by persons having philanthropic attitude in life, has incurred expenses. It goes without saying that reimbursement of those expenses has to be made to that institution. (19) In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is disposed of with the following directions: - (1) petitioner institution shall appear before the learned court below on 15 - 12 - 08 and shall submit the health report of each of the cattle along with photographs, which were given in supurdgi to the petitioner. (2) petitioner institution shall also furnish the account of expenses spent in maintaining the cattle which were given in custody. (2) petitioner institution shall also furnish the account of expenses spent in maintaining the cattle which were given in custody. (3) learned trial court shall dispose of the criminal case filed against the accused on merit, within a period of three months and shall also decide the entitlement of the accused persons to get back the cattle which were seized from their custody finally. At that time learned court below shall also pass an appropriate order regarding reimbursement of expenses incurred by the petitioner institution in maintaining the cattle. (4) in case learned court below finds it difficult to dispose of the criminal case itself finally on merits within the time stipulated by this court, then the learned court below shall decide the application and at that time shall also keep in to consideration the financial status of the accused respondent nos. 1 to 3 relating to maintenance of the cattle by them. (20) With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. The impugned order passed by the learned sessions court stands set aside.