Judgment: M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is being heard finally at motion stage. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 13/6/2013 passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Criminal Revision No. 104/2013 affirming the order dated 15/4/2013 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni in Criminal Case No. 4037/2012 directing the applicant to hand over the seized buffaloes to respondent No. 2. 2. Facts, in brief, of the case are that Police Station Kuthla seized a truck bearing registration No. U.P. 15 A.T.-0084 on 11/10/2012 transporting 16 buffaloes illegally for slaughtering under Section 4, 6(ka) of M.P. Pashu Parikshan Adhiniyam and under Section 11 of Cruelty to Animal Act as well as under Section123/191/87 of Motor Vehicles Act from the possession of respondent No. 2. A criminal case bearing Crime No. 328/2012 was registered. Seized buffaloes were handed over to the applicant by the police for their care taking. 3. Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 451-457 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni for taking the seized buffaloes in his custody. The said application was allowed vide order dated 15/4/2013 (Annexure-P/1) directing the applicant to hand over the seized buffaloes to respondent No. 2 with certain conditions imposed in the order. Thereafter the applicant filed a criminal revision bearing Criminal No. 104/2013 before the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Katni whereupon learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the order dated 15/4/2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni, dismissed the revision vide order dated 13/6/2013 (Annexure-A/2). Both the Courts below have directed the applicant to hand over the seized buffaloes to respondent No. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, assailing the aforesaid order, submits that before passing the order dated 15/4/2013, eight buffaloes had died and in this regard the applicant filed an objection before the trial Court, however, both the Courts below have outrightly rejected his submission regarding death of eight buffaloes. Learned counsel further contends that when the buffaloes died, owning to illness, it is not possible for the applicant to obey the order of learned trial Court, owing to which allowing the petition, the order passed by both the Courts below be modified accordingly. 5. Learned counsel further contends that when the buffaloes died, owning to illness, it is not possible for the applicant to obey the order of learned trial Court, owing to which allowing the petition, the order passed by both the Courts below be modified accordingly. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, opposing the submissions made on behalf of applicant, pleads that the story of death of eight buffaloes put forth by the applicant is totally false and concocted as the applicant did not inform to the Court or Police immediately regarding the death of eight buffaloes and did not get any post-mortem conducted on the buffaloes as alleged to have died, therefore, the said story has been discarded by both the Courts below having considered the entire material before the Court. Learned counsel further submits that when the findings of both the Courts are concurrent, no interference is required in this matter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as there is no abuse of process of law in this case and no illegality has been committed by both the Courts below. Besides it, the seized buffaloes are of the ownership of respondent No. 2 who is entitled to get them back in his custody. The applicant further wants to garb the buffaloes, and so the stand taken by him is not acceptable. 6. Arguments were considered. Both the orders were perused. 7. Indisputedly, respondent No. 2 is the owner of the seized buffaloes. Learned both the Courts below have rightly directed the applicant for handing over all the seized buffaloes to respondent No. 2 is entitled to keep them in his custody. The seized buffaloes were handed over to the applicant only for their care taking as an interim custody. The stand taken by the applicant regarding death of eight buffaloes is not found reliable, therefore, the objection filed by the applicant was rejected by both the learned Courts below. Neither any illegality nor any irregularity is found in both the orders warranting interference in them. 8. Hence the petition filed by the applicant, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.