JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. A Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K K Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. 2. This revision petition under Section 397/401 r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the Order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned FTC No. 3, Kamrup (Metro) in Misc. Case No. 62/2022 u/s 120(B)/379 IPC r/w Section 11(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. 3. It is to be noted herein that vide impugned Order, Court below has dismissed the zimmapetition filed by the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 62/2022 seeking custody of 25 numbers of cattle which were seized in the aforementioned case. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “On 28.04.2022, S.I Bormon of Police Station, acting on a tip off apprehended one twelve wheeler TATA Truck bearing Registration no. NL-01- AA-3451, loaded with 25 numbers of cattle at Borkhat Baruwari village, at NH37, and on being asked, the driver of the vehicle failed to produce any document of the cattles. Thereafter, S.I Bupendra Rawat has seized the same preparing seizure list and during, preliminary investigation it has been found that one accused Babul Das, Tunmun Das and Md. Sohibur Rahman are involved in illegal trade of cattle smuggling into Bangladesh through Meghalaya. Upon the said FIR, the Officer-in-charge, Sonapur P.S has registered Sonapur P.S Case No. 102/2022 u/s 120B/379 IPC r/w Section 11(a)(b)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 and endorse S.I Bupendra Rawat to investigate the same. Thereafter, the petitioner Md. Ariful Islam had preferred a petition seeking custody of the seized cattle before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati. Then, the learned Court below has called for one report from the I.O concerned as to (i) who are the owner of the cattles. (ii) whether the cattles were subject to cruelty, (iii) who were the registered owner of the seized vehicle, (iv) whether the seized cattle and vehicles were required for the purpose of investigation. Thereafter the I.O. had submitted one report to the effect that the petitioner had purchased the cattle 4. (ii) whether the cattles were subject to cruelty, (iii) who were the registered owner of the seized vehicle, (iv) whether the seized cattle and vehicles were required for the purpose of investigation. Thereafter the I.O. had submitted one report to the effect that the petitioner had purchased the cattle 4. Being highly aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on the ground that the I.O in his report has clearly stated that the seized vehicle and the seized cattle are not required for the purpose of investigation but the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the said fact, and that the learned Court below also failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has purchased the cattle for agricultural purpose, and that the Police has seized the cattle on the ground of suspicion only and such suspicion is unfounded in view of the petitioner before the learned Court below but the learned Court below has failed to consider the same and that the learned Court below also failed to consider that the seized cattles are not stolen cattle which were purchased legally and that the animals were not subjected to any kind of cruelty as they were provided with food and water and proper care was taken and that the petitioner is a farmer and he purchased the cattle for agricultural purpose and that the health condition of the cattles are being deteriorating day by day and in the event of not releasing them in the custody of the petitioner, he will suffer hardship and irreparable loss and therefore it is contended to allow the petition. 5. Ms. A Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the I.O has illegally seized the cattle in spite of the documents shown for purchasing of the cattle and that the learned Court below without applying its mind has dismissed the petition in spite of the fact that the I.O. has submitted a written report to the effect that the cattle and the vehicle are not required for the purpose of investigation. Ms. A. Medhi further submits that the petitioner is a farmer and for agricultural purpose he has purchased the cattle and they were not subjected to any kind of cruelty and therefore, Ms. Medhi contended to allow the petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K K Parashar, learned Addl. Ms. A. Medhi further submits that the petitioner is a farmer and for agricultural purpose he has purchased the cattle and they were not subjected to any kind of cruelty and therefore, Ms. Medhi contended to allow the petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K K Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce authenticated document for purchasing the cattles from the market and that the said cattles were purchased for transporting it to Bangladesh-via-Meghalaya for slaughtering and that the State of Meghalaya is a border State of Bangladesh and there is international boundary and without permission, the petitioner cannot transport the cattle to Meghalaya in view of the provision of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 and that the petitioner is involved in the organized business of cattle smuggling and the impugned order passed by the Court below suffers from illegality or infirmity and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Mr. K K Parashar has also referred one case of this Court in Cril. Rev. Pet.No. 41/2021 dated 17.11.2021 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the petition, seeking custody of the seized cattles and the said Judgment is upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meher Banu Begum vs. The State of Assam & Ors vide order dated 04.03.2022. 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petitions and the documents placed on record and also perused the order of this Court in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 41/2021 and also the order of the Hon’ble of Supreme Court dated 04.03.2022 in the case of Meher Banu Begum vs. The State of Assam & Ors, a Special Leave to appeal (Crl. No. 9997/2021). Also I have carefully gone through the impugned Order dated 25.05.2022. 9. It appears that the learned Court below has dismissed the petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C on the ground that the petitioner has produced 5 receipt in support of his claim that he purchased the seized cattle from Bihara weekly livestock market and the receipt does not properly described the seized cattles and that the petitioner has not been co-operating with the Investigating Agency and therefore, the learned Court below has dismissed the petition. 10. 10. I have carefully gone through the documents which were produced by the petitioner before the learned Court below which are annexed with the petition as Annexure-2 series and it appears that no description of each individual cattle is given in the aforesaid receipt so produced by the petitioner. Therefore, no infirmity or illegality appears to have been committed by the learned Court below while dismissing the petition. It also appears that the cattles were transported to Meghalaya by the petitioner and Meghalaya has sharing international boundary with Bangladesh. Further, it appears that a preliminary investigation was conducted by the I.O. and the report of such investigation reveals that the cattles were transported to Bangladesh and the petitioner is involved in illegal trade of cattle smuggling. 11. Section 7(1)(i)(ii) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, prohibits transporting of cattle, which reads as under: “7. Prohibition on transport of cattle:-(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any cattle, without valid permit, from,- (i) any place of other State through Assam to any place outside State of Assam; (ii) any place within the State of Assam to any place outside the State of Assam where slaughter of cattle is not regulated by law.” 12. Here the cattles were transported to Meghalaya through Assam where slaughter of cattle is not regulated by law as stated, without valid permit. In view of above, I find no merit in the submission so advanced by Ms. A Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, I find sufficient force in the submission so advanced by Mr. K K Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the case were referred by him also fortified his submission. In the aforementioned case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that it is apparent than the cattles were transported in the vehicle by allotting the provision of the act and the rules and the petitioner is silent as regards with the compliance of the rules i.e. Section 11 of the Act and the proviso to Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Rule 56(c) of Transport of Animal Rules and relying upon two case laws in Laxmi Narayan Modi vs. Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 227 and Manager Pinjarpole Deudar & Anr. vs. Chakram Moraji Nat & Ors., reported in (1998) 6 SCC 520 has dismissed the petition seeking custody of the seized cattles. 13. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.