Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2003 (PNJ)

Bhajan Lal v. Krishan

2010-07-09

RAJAN GUPTA

body2010
Judgment Rajan Gupta, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 18th May, 2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby order dated 7th May, 2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, granting Superdari of oxes to the petitioners was reversed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that order passed by the Sessions Judge is totally unsustainable. According to learned counsel, since the accused had been booked only under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and not under (Punjab) Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, they are entitled to have the oxes on Superdari. According to him, Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in directing that the oxes be retained in the Gaushala during pendency of trial. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 4. A perusal of the order passed by Sessions Judge shows that he came to a prima facie conclusion that accused was taking the oxes to Delhi without any licence or permit and same would amount to violation of (Punjab) Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. In view of this, he felt that the oxes recovered from the petitioners could not be handed over to the accused. He also took note of Section 23 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any legal infirmity with the impugned order. I am, thus, of the considered view that the order directing the oxes to be retained in Gaushala on furnishing of surety, is totally sustainable. A perusal of the order shows that the petitioners have been permitted to take the oxes on Superdari in case they produce permit from the competent authority to export the oxes outside State of Haryana. However, in the absence of such permit, oxes have been ordered to be retained in Gaushala during the pendency of trial. I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by court below. The revision petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed.