JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.R.P.No.4 of 2015, dated 29.06.2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai dated 23.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1619 of 2015 and set aside the same. Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.R.P.No.5 of 2015, dated 29.06.2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai dated 23.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1621 of 2015 and set aside the same. Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.R.P.No.6 of 2015, dated 29.06.2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai dated 23.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1622 of 2015 and set aside the same. Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.R.P.No.7 of 2015, dated 29.06.2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai dated 23.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1623 of 2015 and set aside the same.) Common Order: 1. These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by one the custodian of Goshala by name, Arunachala Animal Sanctuary and Rescue Shelter, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below returning the cattle which were transported contrary to Chapter IV of The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 15.03.2015 based on the complaint given by one Venkatesh, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.145 of 2015. Pursuant to the complaint, a lorry which was transporting cattle without permission to transport them, was intercepted and the cattle were rescued. Out of 40 cattle one cow died, while in the course of transport itself. 39 cattle were handed over to the Goshala administered by the petitioner herein and the petitioner was taking care of them till 23.03.2015. Pursuant to the complaint, a lorry which was transporting cattle without permission to transport them, was intercepted and the cattle were rescued. Out of 40 cattle one cow died, while in the course of transport itself. 39 cattle were handed over to the Goshala administered by the petitioner herein and the petitioner was taking care of them till 23.03.2015. The offenders claiming that the trial Court has ordered to return the cattle back to their custody, came to the Goshala maintained by the petitioner and forcibly took away the cattle. Against the order of returning the cattle to the temporary custody of the accused, the defacto complainant filed an appeal before the District Court to set aside the order. However, the same got dismissed. In the said circumstances, these revision petitions are filed stating that the order of returning the rescued cattle to the accused is contrary to the Act and Rules and it is illegal. Furthermore, the petitioner, who has provide shelter to the rescued cattle, was not paid due expenses and not heard before the returning the cattle. 3. This Court, after considering the manner in which the cattle were handed over to the offenders for temporary custody caused summons to the accused persons and to return the cattle back to the Court and also invited a report from the Courts below. The offenders through their respective counsel reported that cattle which were taken the custody by them. The Magistrate, who has ordered custody of the cattle to the offenders had not taken any action for forfeiture of bond. In the said circumstances, the matter was posted today for further orders. 4. In continuation of the earlier order passed by this Court on 21.07.2022, the Judicial Magistrate filed report and informed the accused persons who took back the temporary custody of the cattle had deposited the bond amount. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Rule 96 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 contemplates before transportation, a valid certificate issued by a competent officer should accompany the cattle under transit. In most of the cases, the transporters fail to carry such certificate but manage to get the certificate at later point of time after the cattle are seized and produced before the Court. In most of the cases, the transporters fail to carry such certificate but manage to get the certificate at later point of time after the cattle are seized and produced before the Court. To get the temporary custody of the cattle back pending trial, this practice is adopted and thereafter the accused persons rarely participate in the trial. Almost in all cases the offenders kill or sell the cattle, once they get back the custody. 6. Taking note of the said submissions, it is directed that whenever the cattle found transported without valid certificate as contemplated under Rule 96, the same has to be confiscated and no Court shall return it for temporary custody to the offender, based on the certificate submitted at later point of time. 7. As far as this case is concerned, since the petitioner herein has taken care and custody of the cattle from 15.03.2015 to 19.03.2015, which were handed over to the petitioner, therefore, from the amount forfeited, a sum of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner herein towards the cost of maintaining the cattle. 8. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the accused persons submitted that the accused, who have taken back the cattle paid the bond amount and produced 4 challans for Rs.50,000/- each totally Rs.2,00,000/-. The order of the trial Court returning the cattle to the offenders and the same been confirmed by the District Court is an eye opener for this Court, how the provision of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 breached and scantly respected even by Courts by passing orders returning the victim cattle to the offenders itself. 9. Hence, this Court issue the following directions to the Courts below to follow while dealing with the rescued cattle:- (i) Whenever the police or any agency rescue the cattle transported without following the guidelines and Rules framed under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the same has to be seized and handed over to the nearest registered Goshala for proper care and protection. (ii) The said Goshala should give an undertaking to provide shelter and medical care to those rescued cattle. The expenses for that shall be collected from the offender and paid to them. Till the maintenance charges are paid, the Goshala shall have lien over the cattle. (iii) The Court should ensure payment of maintenance to the Goshala. (ii) The said Goshala should give an undertaking to provide shelter and medical care to those rescued cattle. The expenses for that shall be collected from the offender and paid to them. Till the maintenance charges are paid, the Goshala shall have lien over the cattle. (iii) The Court should ensure payment of maintenance to the Goshala. (iv) At no point of time, the cattle should be returned to the offenders for temporary custody till the disposal of the trial, unless the ownership is proved and cruelty to the animal is disproved. 10. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.