JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. This is a challenge made by Jetha Singh and Revant Singh by way of Mr. Sikander Khan, for the petitioner Mrs. Chanderlekha, Public Prosecutor filing revision petition against the order passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, Barmer Camp Balotra vide judgment dated 18.10.2010 in Sessions Case No. 44/2010. 3. Facts of the case in nut shell are that on 10.1.2010 at about 6.30 P.M. a report was lodged at Police Station Sivana on the telephonic information received by one Tikam Singh Rajpurohit that two trucks were loaded by bovine animals and they are being transported from Sivana to Mokalsar. On the above information, police seized the Truck No. RJ 19 1 G 1666 and Truck No. RJ 19 1 G 5598 and a search was conducted and in the search 21 and 19 bovines were found in the above numbered trucks. Inquiry regarding permit was conducted and it was found that Permit No. 1563 dated 9.1.2010 and Permit No. 1573 dated 9.1.2010 issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dhorimanna, Distt. Barmer who at the relevant time was also performing the duty as Mela Officer. After investigation, police registered a case under Section 11(5) of the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1960') and under Section 3 r/w 8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1995) and accused-petitioners were arrested. After investigation police filed challan against the accused-petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned trial Court ordered to frame charges against the petitioners under Section 11(5) of the Act of 1960 and under Section 3 r/w 8 of the Act of 1995. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to frame above charges. 5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor contended that at the relevant time when above animals were seized by the Investigating Officer, they were found in two trucks and they were kept or confined in two trucks which did not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement and they were brought for slaughtering, therefore, order of the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 6. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record available on record and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation as also the copy of the charge-sheet and all the relevant papers supplied for perusal. 7. So far as offence under Section 11(5) of the Act of 1960 is concerned, the recovery memo itself shows that animals were so kept in trucks which did not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement. 8. Turning to the second charge, there is not evidence on record that these animals were being brought for slaughtering by the present petitioners. The learned trial Court ordered to frame these charges under Section 3 r/w 8 of the Act of 1995 on the basis of presumptive evidence and there is no iota of evidence on record that these animals were being brought for slaughtering in absence of such evidence on record, the order of the learned trial Court suffers from illegality or impropriety and, therefore, the order regarding framing of charge under Section 3 r/w 8 of the Act of 1995 is set aside and the order regarding framing of charge under Section 11(5) of the Act of 1960 is maintained. I low-ever, the trial Court is directed to frame the charge under the relevant provisions as observed in this order.With these observations, the revision petition is partly allowed.Revision partly allowed. *******