JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent-State and Mr.Meet R. Modi, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. By way of this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’), the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur dated 17.07.2021 below Exh.1 and 7 in Criminal Case No.3122 of 2021 as also the judgment and order recorded by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur dated 18.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2021 whereby the decision of the concerned Magistrate directing the custody of muddamal live stock of 48 goats to be restored to accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 452 of ‘the Code’, which was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate Court and confirmed by it rejecting appeal preferred. In short, the impugned orders concerned with disposal of property live stock at the conclusion of trial under Section 452 of ‘the Code’. 3. Mr. Virat G. Popat, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Bharat Naik, Senior Advocate, learned counsel assisted by Mr.Meet R. Modi, learned advocates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as also Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised several contentions, in respect of disposal of properties, provisions for disposal of live stock and deprivation of ownership thereof as provided under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) as also binding nature of judgment i.e. precedents. However, since this revision application can be disposed of on a short issue that before passing of an order disposing of properties i.e. live stock on conclusion of trial, the petitioner - Panjarapole was not heard, Learned advocates appearing for the parties requested that no threadbare analysis of the contentions raised by citing several provision of ‘the Act’ and connected Rules thereof be gone into, I confine this decision to the aforesaid issue for determining the present revision application. 4. On 29.06.2021, ASI, Aadilkhan Anwarkhan of Gadh Police Station received a secret information that in LP Truck No.GJ-03- BW-1380 goats are being transported in a crowded condition and they are to be taken to the slaughter house and it is at present stationary at village: Madana, Ramnagar Para Highway. 4. On 29.06.2021, ASI, Aadilkhan Anwarkhan of Gadh Police Station received a secret information that in LP Truck No.GJ-03- BW-1380 goats are being transported in a crowded condition and they are to be taken to the slaughter house and it is at present stationary at village: Madana, Ramnagar Para Highway. Pursuant to the information, the first informant, ASI, Aadilkhan Anwarkhan and other police party reached the place as per the information and found one person sitting on a driver sit and along with him in a cabin there were certain accused named in the First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’). On asking about pass or permits for transporting 48 goats in a crowded condition without providing any fodder or water for them and thereby they committed an offence under Sections 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e) and 11(1)(h) of ‘the Act’. The said ‘FIR’ came to be registered at Gadh Police Station against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as also other co-accused including driver. Since in the police station, there was no arrangement for keeping live stock, interim custody thereof was handed over to the petitioner -Panjarapole in anticipation of orders from the concerned Court to permit the said action and which was ultimately permitted by the Court. 5. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, during the pendency of the case, preferred an application to have interim custody thereof with a notice to the petitioner - Panjarapole, however, that application came to be withdrawn and a charge-sheet appears to have been filed against the accused on 12.07.2021. Pursuant to filing of a charge-sheet for the aforesaid offence, on 17.07.2021, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge and therefore, they came to be convicted and ordered to pay fine of Rs.50/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. The accused filed a pursis wherein they disclosed that it is their first offence. The accused filed a pursis wherein they disclosed that it is their first offence. However, on conclusion of trial, learned Magistrate undertook the exercise of disposal of property under Section 452 of ‘the Code’ and ordered to handover the custody of 48 goats to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as no other person claimed it, in absence of any demand of any cost of transporting the animal to an infirmary or Panjarapole and its’ maintenance and treatment by the petitioner - Panjarapole, the learned Magistrate concluded that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to have possession of live stock and therefore, on condition of executing a personal bond as also solvent surety of one and half times value of the goats after undertaking Videography / Photography at their cost, was ordered to be handed over. Further thereto, learned Magistrate took notice of the fact that in the charge-sheet also, no other previous offence noted or said to have been committed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, considering the definition of owner, the learned Magistrate ordered the custody to be handed over to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 6. Apart from the fact that the offences for which FIR registered were non-cognizable. No permission was sought for from the concerned Court to investigate the same. Not only the police registered and investigated into non-cognizable offence but concluded it and charge-sheet also came to be filed. As such, no offence could have been registered as it is non-cognizable. However, neither the accused raised any objection either registering FIR or to the filing of a charge-sheet in connection with non-cognizable offences nor Court examined the same. Even accused pleaded guilty to the charge of a non-cognizable offence when they were prosecuted by way of a charge-sheet. Be that as it may, once trial is concluded, in absence of any proceedings challenging the same, it cannot be reopened, more particularly in this revision application determining the issue who is entitled to possession of muddamal property. 7. Mr.Virat Popat, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate before passing order for disposal of property should have heard the petitioner - Panjarapole as they were entrusted with the interim custody of live stock 48 goats before it is handed over back to its original owners on conclusion of trial. 7. Mr.Virat Popat, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate before passing order for disposal of property should have heard the petitioner - Panjarapole as they were entrusted with the interim custody of live stock 48 goats before it is handed over back to its original owners on conclusion of trial. He has further submitted that not only the petitioner -Panjarapole is interested in final disposal of muddamal property on conclusion of trial but they were required to be heard before passing the order for the same. He has further submitted that even Revisional Court has also failed to consider the said aspect as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner -Panjarapole by the learned Magistrate before passing final order of giving custody of the muddamal live stock to its original owners. It is further submitted that the Revsional Court though considered the submission but in a wrong direction. The learned Revisional Court, according to the submission of Mr.Popat, misdirected itself while holding that when the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – accused informed the Panjarapole about the admission of their offence or they are pleading guilty of the offence, it is concluded by the Revisional Court that after such admission of guilt / pleading guilty, since issue of custody of live stock would be decided, it was within the knowledge of the learned advocate for the petitioner and therefore, there is sufficient compliance. 8. Relying on the decision in the case of Mahamed Jamalbhai V/s. State of Gujarat reported in 1985 (2) GLR 983 it was submitted that not only the petitioner -Panjarapole can maintain appeal against the order of disposal of muddamal live stock under Section 454 of ‘the Code’ as an aggrieved party but they were required to be heard before disposing of the muddamal. Drawing attention of the Court to the conclusion reached by the Court in para-8 of the aforesaid decision, it is submitted that in no uncertain terms right of hearing to the petitioner -Panjarapole who is entrusted with the interim custody of the muddamal live stock before passing any final order before disposing of it, is recognized. Even right to appeal as an aggrieved party under Section 454 of ‘the Code’ is also recognized by the aforesaid decision. Even right to appeal as an aggrieved party under Section 454 of ‘the Code’ is also recognized by the aforesaid decision. Therefore, it is submitted that admittedly the order passed by the trial Court without hearing the petitioner and order of appellate Court misconstruing the necessity of hearing attributing knowledge of pendency of proceedings, requires to be interfered with and this Revision Application is required to be allowed. 9. As against that, Mr.B.B.Naik, Senior Advocate, learned counsel assisted by Mr.Meet R. Modi, learned advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – owners submitted that the decision which is relied on is not on the issue raised by the petitioner. Mr.Naik, Senior Advocate, learned counsel submitted that for interpreting the term “person aggrieved” under Section 454 of ‘the Code’ which is worded in a very wide terms, the Court has determined that the Panjarapole may have a right to file an appeal against the order disposing of live stock as an aggrieved person but it has not been held as a precedent that they have right of hearing before learned Magistrate while disposing of the muddamal live stock on conclusion of trial. 10. Mr.Naik, Senior Advocate, learned counsel further submitted that since interim custody was handed over to the Panjarapole, they are not the persons interested in the property but they held it as a custodian / trustee on behalf of the Court. Therefore, they have no right of hearing before the learned Magistrate while disposing of the muddamal live stock under Section 452 of ‘the Code’. It is further submitted that even if petitioner- Panjarapole was not heard by the Magistrate while disposing of the live stock, they were unable to show even before appellate Court or this Court how and in what manner they are entitled to the custody of it or can object to the same as they are neither the complainant nor the person affected by the disposal of property. 11. It is further submitted that anything and everything stated in the judgment relied on cannot be treated as a precedent. According to him, what is binding is the “ratio decidendi” in the case, which can be culled out from the issue raised, the argument advanced by the party and conclusion reached by the Court on the said issue. 11. It is further submitted that anything and everything stated in the judgment relied on cannot be treated as a precedent. According to him, what is binding is the “ratio decidendi” in the case, which can be culled out from the issue raised, the argument advanced by the party and conclusion reached by the Court on the said issue. It is further submitted that in the case of Mahamed Jamalbhai (supra), the Court was concerned with locus-standi of the petitioner- Panjarapole to maintain an appeal under Section 454 of ‘the Code’ against the order passed by the Magistrate disposing of the live stock. While determining that issue, interpreting the term “any person” under Section 454 of ‘the Code’, the Court has held that the petitioner – Panjarapole can be said to be a person aggrieved to maintain appeal as it is widely worded. Therefore, even if, they have a right of appeal against the order passed by the Magistrate, ipso-facto, they may not have a right to participate in the proceedings in respect of disposal of property on conclusion of trial. He has further submitted that while application for interim custody was determined, the petitioner -Panjarapole was issued notice and the pendency of the case was well within the knowledge of Panjarapole and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court has passed an order without hearing the petitioner -Panjarapole. Therefore, he has submitted that the petition preferred by the petitioner- Panjarapole may be rejected. 12. Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that decision in the case of Mahamed Jamalbhai (supra) is followed in two other decisions by this Court. She has submitted that other coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Naroda Mahajan Parabadi & Khoda Dhor Panjarapole Trust v/s. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.1184 of 2007 determined on 01.08.2007 relied on decision in the case of Mahamed Jamalbhai (Supra) stating that the controversy in question is squarely covered by it as in the case before the Court, the petitioner therein was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before releasing the live stock in favour of Respondent No.2 therein. Another decision relied on is in the case of Rajendra Ratilal Shah V/s. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.2865 of 2012 determined on 11.10.2017 by relying on the case of Mahamed Jamalbhai (supra) and other two decisions and it is held that since the orders were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective petitioner in that petition the orders under challenge were quashed and set aside. Thus, she has submitted that right to hearing is recognized in favour of the petitioner- Panjarapole who are entrusted with interim custody of live stock during the pendency of case, while considering final disposal of the same on conclusion of trial. Therefore, she supported the contention raised by the petitioner and submitted that matter be remanded back to the learned Magistrate directing him to determine it afresh after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner– Panjarapole as also the State and Respondent No.2 & 3. 13. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the papers annexed with the charge-sheet, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was entrusted with the interim custody of muddamal live stock 48 goats during the pendency of investigation as also the trial. It is also not in dispute that accused pleaded guilty to the charge and they have been convicted. Again, it is not in dispute that before handing over the muddamal property and live stock to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – owner, the petitioner – Panjarapole, who was entrusted with interim custody, was not heard. 14. As such, considering the scheme of ‘the Act’ as also different Rules framed under the said Act it recognizes the object that no cruelty to animals be inflicted. The Panjarapole is considered to be an Institution to take care of the animals and it is again even designated as an infirmary for the treatment of animals. 15. Dealing with the contentions raised by Mr.Popat, learned advocate for the petitioner with regard to right of hearing to the petitioner – Panjarapole, who was entrusted with interim custody of the live stock, a reference is required to be made to the definition of ‘owner’ as defined under Sub-Section (f) of Section 2 of ‘the Act’, which reads as under:. Dealing with the contentions raised by Mr.Popat, learned advocate for the petitioner with regard to right of hearing to the petitioner – Panjarapole, who was entrusted with interim custody of the live stock, a reference is required to be made to the definition of ‘owner’ as defined under Sub-Section (f) of Section 2 of ‘the Act’, which reads as under:. 2(f)‘Owner’, used with reference to an animal, includes not only the owner but also any other person for the time being in possession or custody of the animal, whether with or without the consent of the owner. 16. Keeping in mind the definition of ‘owner’ if a muddamal property cannot be disposed of without hearing the owner thereof even if it may not be the live stock, when ‘the Act’ elevates petitioner – Panjarapole to a status of an owner surely without hearing them, whatever may be the right to object, muddamal live stock could not have been disposed of by the learned Magistrate on conclusion of trial. 17. In the case of Mahamed Jamalbhai (Supra), the learned Magistrate granted custody of muddamal on conclusion of trial to the accused without hearing the Panjarapole, who were entrusted with the interim custody of it. Therefore, Panjarapole challenged the said order by way of an appeal under Section 454 of ‘the Code’ in the Court of Sessions and contended that the live stock was being transported to the slaughter house without obtaining necessary pass or permit as drivers of the truck have pleaded guilty to the charges, Panjarapole - trust was vitally interested and therefore, they have locus-standi to file an appeal under Section 454 of ‘the Code’. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate was required to follow the provisions of Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of ‘the Act’ before disposing of live stock and therefore, he remanded the matter to the trial Court for determining it after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties including the State and after considering the provisions of ‘the Act’. The said order of learned Sessions Judge came to be challenged, in that case, by the accused therein on the ground that under Section 454 of ‘the Code’, a person, who is party to the proceedings, would be an aggrieved person and not the third person. The said order of learned Sessions Judge came to be challenged, in that case, by the accused therein on the ground that under Section 454 of ‘the Code’, a person, who is party to the proceedings, would be an aggrieved person and not the third person. In the alternative, it was submitted that in any case, Panjarapole cannot be said to be the person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 454 of ‘the Code’. 18. Considering Section 454 of ‘the Code’ object and reasons for adding Section 454 in the new Code i.e. Code of 1973 and relying on certain decisions of the Supreme Court as also of the other Courts, it is held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that since the possession of the live stock was handed over to the said Trust, learned Magistrate ought not to have passed the said order without hearing the said Trust granting live stock to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 when the learned Magistrate has not heard them, it can be said that within the meaning of Section 454 of ‘the Code’ Trust was person aggrieved entitled to file an appeal against the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. In short, while terming the Trust- Panjarapole as “a person aggrieved”, right to hearing before the Magistrate was recognized on the ground that interim custody was entrusted to it, they were held entitled to the hearing while disposing of Muddamal live stock on conclusion of trial. 19. As such, the aforesaid decision in the case of Mahamed Jamalbhai (supra) is not only on the issue of considering the “person aggrieved” but terming it to be “person aggrieved” it has been considered that the order disposing of muddamal property was passed by the Magistrate without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner – Trust. The “person aggrieved” can maintain an appeal under Section 454 of ‘the Code’. The “person aggrieved” can maintain an appeal under Section 454 of ‘the Code’. Paragraph 8 of the said judgement reads as under; “8………, in my view the, learned Magistrate ought not to have passed an order without hearing the said Trust granting the livestock to opponent Nos.2 and 3 and as the learned Magistrate has not heard them, it can be said that within the meaning of sec.454 of the Criminal Procedure Code they were aggrieved persons entitled to file an appeal against the order passed by the learned Magistrate…………..” (emphasis supplied) Thus, it determined the issue in terms and I am in full agreement with the said decision and unable to take different view thereof. The argument that the petitioner – Panjarapole was not heard before passing order for disposal of muddamal live stock on conclusion of trial, is required to be accepted. 20. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent-accused that since they were intimated about their intention to admitting offence i.e. pleading guilty to the offence it can be held to be a sufficient compliance with regard to the knowledge of the consequential disposal of property live stock requires to be rejected. The learned appellate Court, in my view, committed an error when it concludes that when accused – owner intimated about admission of guilt to the petitioner-Panjarapole, after such admission, it would be obvious that custody of the live stock would be decided and the same was in the knowledge of the learned advocate for the Panjarapole, however, he failed to appear before the learned trial Court, committed grave error. Even if intimation by a party with regard to the admission of a guilt cannot be equated to be a compliance of right of hearing as recognized in the aforesaid decision of Mahamed Jamalbhai (supra) for the disposal of muddamal live stock on conclusion of trial, the learned appellate Court has misconceived that when interim custody was handed over to the Panjarapole, pendency of the case was very well in the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court had passed order without hearing the appellant. Even if a party has knowledge of any pending proceedings, once it is held that it is required to be heard, the person seeking custody of muddamal live stock on conclusion of trial either should have joined it as a party respondent to the proceedings or the Court should have issued notice to such party for the purpose of hearing. Therefore, intimation by accused of pleading guilty into their case cannot be said to be sufficient compliance as held by the learned Appellate Court and therefore, the said finding is required to be quashed and set aside. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 17.7.2021 below Exh.1 and 7 in Criminal Case No.3122 of 2021 and order passed by the appellate Court dated 18.8.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2021 dismissing the appeal are required to be quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for the purpose of deciding it afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to the State and of-course to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – owners. It would be open to all the parties concerned to raise all possible arguments and questions of law for determination thereof. However, the said exercise is to be concluded preferably within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court but not beyond the period of 4 weeks. Rule made absolute accordingly.