Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 877 (RAJ)

Zaikam v. State of Rajasthan

2014-04-09

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.10.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Revision Petition No. 52/2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revisional Court') whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 29.8.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Chhoti Sadari (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the cattle (buffaloes) on supardaginama has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.8.2013 a truck No. RJ 2GA 2198 was intercepted by ASI Ganpat Singh of Police Station Chhoti Sadari at about 3.05 A.M. and during the search, it was found that 17 buffaloes were tied in the said truck and out of them many buffaloes were injured and one was found dead. An I F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Section 429 I.P.C. read with Section 11(1)(4)(6) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of I960') has been registered against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 filed applications under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the 17 buffaloes on supardaginama. The learned Trial Court after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and has refused to give the custody of the seized cattle to the petitioner on supardaginama vide order dated 29.8.2013. 4. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Revisional Court, however, the Revisional Court has also dismissed the said revision petition vide order dated 1.10.2013 and being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this misc. petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as being the owner of the buffaloes, he is only entitled for the custody of the cattle on supardaginama, however, the Courts below has grossly erred in not giving the custody of the said cattle to the petitioner. It is also contended that as per Section 35 of the Act of 1960 as being owner of the cattle the petitioner is having preferential right to have the custody of the seized cattle. 6. It is also contended that as per Section 35 of the Act of 1960 as being owner of the cattle the petitioner is having preferential right to have the custody of the seized cattle. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar & Anr. v. Chakram Moraji Nat & Ors. reported in 1998 (3) crimes 224 (SC) and decision rendered by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 720 of 2011, Mohammad & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 21.5.2013 and prayed that the orders passed by the Courts below may kindly be quashed and set aside and it may be ordered that the buffaloes seized by the police in connection with F.I.R. No. 269/2013 of Police Chhoti Sadari, Pratapgarh may kindly be handed over to the petitioner on supardaginama. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 8. The Courts below have taken into consideration the fact that the buffaloes seized by the police on 24.8.2013 were transported in a truck and were tied tightly to each other and many of the buffaloes were injured and one buffalo's horn was broken. The Courts below have also observed that one of the seized buffaloes was found dead in the truck. The learned Trial Court after taking into consideration an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 283-287 of 2002, State of U.P. v. Mustakaam & Ors. has held that condition of buffaloes were very bad at the time of seizure and, therefore, the custody of the same cannot be given to the petitioner on supardaginama. The learned Revisional Court after taking into consideration the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Manager Pinjrapole Deudar (supra) has held that fashion in which the buffaloes were found transported and looking to the fact that almost all the buffaloes received injuries on their body, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court has committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 9. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar's case (supra) has held that in deciding the question regarding the interim custody of the animals to the owner of the some factors will be relevant and out of which one of the factor is the condition in which the animal was found at the time of inspection and seizure. 10. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the condition of buffaloes at the time of seizure was very bad and almost all the buffaloes suffered serious injuries during the transportation and in such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below as looking to the condition of the animals, the petitioner is not entitled for their custody on supardaginama.Therefore, this Criminal Misc. Petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******