JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari waives service for respondent No. 1, and learned Adv. Ms. S.R. Ankalwar holding for Adv. Mr. A.R. Wagh, for respondent No. 2. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. By consent of rival parties, this Criminal Application is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this Judgment and Order. Present application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, is filed by Ujwal Gorakshan Sanstha, Lohara, a Public Trust, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 21st February, 2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2014, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Revision filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 - Raju Baburao Nakkawar, thereby directing handing over of livestock, thirty-seven in number, to him on his execution of a bond of Rs. 1,50,000-00 on the conditions mentioned in the said order. 2. First informant, who is a police constable, lodged a report with Police Station, Virur, Tq. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur. The said report was registered as Crime No. 3014/2013 for the offence under Section 11 (1)(c)(j) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and under Section 119 of the Bombay Police Act. The said First Information Report was registered on 24th December, 2013. The sum and substance of the First Information Report is that the first informant found respondent No. 2 taking thirty-seven animals, out of which thirty-six were cows and one bull, on foot from Mundigate to Dongargaon. Those animals were tied by a rope. According to First Information Report, the animals were being taken for slaughtering. It is also mentioned in the First Information Report that animals were not provided adequate food and water. With this assertion, the crime was registered against the respondent No. 2 and animals were seized and those were put in a cattle pound. 3. The registration of the aforesaid crime and keeping of the said livestock in cattle pound resulted into filing of two applications for a custody before the learned Magistrate. Criminal Application No. 259 of 2013 was filed on behalf of present applicant, whereas Criminal Application No. 258 of 2013 was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. The claim of each of the parties was objected by the rival party before the learned Magistrate. Criminal Application No. 259 of 2013 was filed on behalf of present applicant, whereas Criminal Application No. 258 of 2013 was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. The claim of each of the parties was objected by the rival party before the learned Magistrate. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajura, passed a common order on 1st January, 2014. The application filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 was rejected, whereas the application filed on behalf of the present applicant was allowed. 4. Being dissatisfied by rejection of his application, the respondent No. 2 preferred a Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, vide Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2014. The said Revision was allowed by the impugned order dated 21st February, 2014. 5. Undisputedly, in pursuance of the order passed by the Revisional Court on 21st February, 2014, the animals are given in custody of respondent No. 2. 6. This Court [Coram : A.B. Chaudhari, J.], on 2nd July, 2015 passed an order directing respondent No. 2 to produce evidence that he himself is a farmer and needs the cattle and for what purpose cattle are being used. Respondent No. 2 was also directed to furnish information about the cattle which are alive as on today. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit before this Court on 7th July, 2015. In the said affidavit, it is pointed out that he is having sufficient cattle shed of 2,000 sq. ft. He cultivates land approximately admeasuring twenty acres bearing Survey No. 38 at village Kavipeth, Tq. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that one Husain Sheikh, a Veterinary Doctor, visits the place in order to examine the animals and the animals are in extremely healthy condition. By the said affidavit, it is also pointed out that when the animals were given in custody of the respondent No. 2, their health was extremely poor and weak and they were badly starved. By the said affidavit, it is also pointed out that out of thirty-seven animals, two died. However, three new calves took birth and they are in healthy condition. The said affidavit is not at all controverted by the applicant. 7. There is no dispute about the ownership of these animals. Admittedly, the ownership of the animals vests with the respondent No. 2. However, three new calves took birth and they are in healthy condition. The said affidavit is not at all controverted by the applicant. 7. There is no dispute about the ownership of these animals. Admittedly, the ownership of the animals vests with the respondent No. 2. Even the Investigating Officer, who has filed submissions before this Court, has reiterated the said position. 8. Merely because the animals were taken on foot from one place to another, in my view, will not be a cruelty. Further, according to the First Information Report, the animals were tied by a rope. The act on the part of respondent No. 2 of taking the animals on their foot by road with a rope tied to them cannot be faulted, since it prevents uncontrolled movement of animals on the road. There is nothing available on record to show that the animals were taken for slaughtering. At the time of seizure of the animals, they were in possession of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the said livestock. The health of the animals after handing the over to respondent No. 2 has improved. Further, it is not the case of the applicant that the respondent No. 2 has committed breach of any condition. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Revisional Court. Hence Criminal Application [APL] No. 629 of 2014 is dismissed. Rule is discharged.