ORDER : Bency Shaji is the revision petitioner in both these revision petitions, where State of Kerala is the 1st respondent and the Range Forest Officer, Thiruvananthapuram is arrayed as the 2nd respondent. In Crl.R.P.No.555/2023, the revision petitioner assails order in CMP No.281/2021 in O.R.No.2/2020 and in Crl.R.P.No.556/2023, the same revision petitioner impugns order in CRMP No.282/2021 in O.R.No.4/2020, germane as per common order dated 02.06.2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department in detail. The precise allegation led to registration of O.R.No.2/2020 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 39(3)(b), 40(2), 42, 43(1), 43(2), 44, 49, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for easy reference) is that A.V.Prasanth, Mangalassery, Oham Nagar, Manikanteshwaram, Perookada, kept an elephant by name `Balanarayanan (Ganesan)’ without any ownership and without the permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden. On inspection, the Chief Wild Life Warden found that possession of the elephant by A.V.Prasanth is illegal and accordingly crime alleging commission of the above offences was registered and the elephant was taken into physical custody and thereafter given temporary custody to .Praveen, facilitating rehabilitation of the elephant under the custody of the Forest Department. 3. O.R.No.4/2020 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 2(16), 39(3), 42, 43 and 44 of the Act by Dr.Amrith Prasad stating that the 1st accused along with other agreed to sell the elephant by name Balanarayanan to Dr.Amrith Prasad and thereby obtained Rs.1,10,25,000/- from Dr.Amrith Prasad towards the sale consideration and thereafter cheated him without giving the elephant. In this crime also, the elephant has been in custody. 4. After receiving custody of the elephant it was given to Mr. Praveen, the 3rd accused in O.R.No.2/2020 for interim custody on executing bond by him, as an interim arrangement to hand over the elephant to the Forest Department to keep the elephant in the custody of the Forest Department at rehabilitation Centre at Kottur. While so, Sri A.V.Prasanth, the 1st accused in O.R.Nos.2/2020 and 4/2020 filed petitions, viz., CMP.Nos.1367/2020 and 1368/2020 and sought interim custody of the elephant. But those petitions were dismissed. Then the said orders were challenged before the Sessions Court, the same also were dismissed. While so, Sri A.V.Prasanth, the 1st accused in O.R.Nos.2/2020 and 4/2020 filed petitions, viz., CMP.Nos.1367/2020 and 1368/2020 and sought interim custody of the elephant. But those petitions were dismissed. Then the said orders were challenged before the Sessions Court, the same also were dismissed. It was thereafter Bency Shaji filed C.M.P No.281/2021 in OR No.2/2020 and C.M.P No.282/2021 in O.R.No.4/2020 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking interim custody of the elephant till the disposal of this case. 5. As per common order dated 02.06.2021, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court for the trial of forest offences, Nedumangad dismissed both the petitions. 6. Challenging the said common order, these Revision Petitions have been filed and in view of the interim order passed by this Court, now the elephant is in custody of Praveen. 7. While assailing the common order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Bency Shaji, the revision petitioner herein, is the owner of the elephant and ownership in the name of Bency Shaji is not in dispute. Therefore, being the owner of the elephant, Bency Shaji has every right to keep the custody of the elephant and, therefore, the learned Magistrate went wrong in dismissing the interim custody applications and as such the common order requires interference granting interim custody of the elephant at the hands of the revision petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in [ 2012 (2) KHC 622 ], Venkitachalam V.R v. State of Kerala & Ors. to contend that absolute transfer of elephant is not prohibited but the same can be done only with approval and in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Chief Wild Life Warden and general ban on transfer of animal is not applicable to live animals. 9. Whereas the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department zealously opposed the prayer for interim custody of the elephant. He submitted that ownership certificate in relation to the elephant is in the name of Bency Shaji. 9. Whereas the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department zealously opposed the prayer for interim custody of the elephant. He submitted that ownership certificate in relation to the elephant is in the name of Bency Shaji. But thereafter Bency Shaji went to study MBBS Course during the period 2007-2013 and at the time when she went for studies, as per Annexure IV, titled as gift agreement of elephant dated 05.08.2010 (produced in Crl.R.P.No.556/2021), she parted the ownership and custody of the elephant with one D.Praveen, S/o.Dinakaran, the uncle of Bency Shaji, on 05.08.2010 itself. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) submitted that as per the recitals in Annexure IV, the elephant was transferred to D.Praveen as a gift along with the relevant documents and thereby Bency Shaji gave up all the right over the elephant in favour of D.Praveen. It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the said transfer of ownership is in derogation of the provisions of Section 43 of the Act and the same is an offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act, for which O.R.2/2020 was registered. It is also submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) that while D.Praveen was dealing with the elephant, he parted the elephant to one Sreejith; Sreejith to Prasanth; Prasanth again to Praveen and Praveen again to Prasanth. It is also submitted that thereafter the elephant was offered to be sold to Dr.Amrith Prasad for Rs.1,00,25,000/- against the restriction contained in Section 43 of the Act and according to Dr.Amrith Prasad he was cheated by the accused. It is argued by the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) that when the Forest Department seized the elephant and taken into its custody, A.V.Prasanth filed petitions seeking interim custody of the elephant before the Magistrate Court vide CMP Nos.1367/2020 in OR No.4/2020 and CMP No.1368/2020 in OR No.2/2020 and the same were dismissed on 04.03.2021. Though the said order was challenged before the Sessions Court by filing Crl.R.P.Nos.10 and 11 of 2021, the learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the said petitions. It was thereafter Bency Shaji, who in fact, parted her entire right over the elephant as early as on 05.08.2010 as already discussed, in derogation to the provisions of the Wild Life Act, filed the present petitions for interim custody and the learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the same. It was thereafter Bency Shaji, who in fact, parted her entire right over the elephant as early as on 05.08.2010 as already discussed, in derogation to the provisions of the Wild Life Act, filed the present petitions for interim custody and the learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the same. Therefore, the common order does not deserve any interference and therefore the above petitions may be dismissed with liberty to the Forest Department to remove the elephant to its rehabilitation centre, for better management. 10. The questions arose for consideration are: (a) What is the procedure to be followed by a person who had control, custody or possession of any captive animal specified in Schedule I or part of Schedule II or animal article, or any uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal, or the salted or dried skin of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, to declare the same after the commencement of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972? (b) Can a person having certificate of ownership in relation to captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy by way of sale, custody or possession or otherwise, transfer or transport without the permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer ? (c) Whether a captive elephant, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy in respect of which a person having certificate of possession can sell or offer for sale or any other mode of consideration of commercial nature? 11. In this case, originally the elephant by name `Ganesan’ was owned by Bency Shaji, who is the revision petitioner herein, and the said ownership is not in dispute. However, crime was registered on the finding that the elephant was illegally possessed by A.V.Prasanth, without any legal documents of ownership. 12. In this context, it is relevant to refer Sections 40, 42 and 43 of the Act. However, crime was registered on the finding that the elephant was illegally possessed by A.V.Prasanth, without any legal documents of ownership. 12. In this context, it is relevant to refer Sections 40, 42 and 43 of the Act. Section 40(1) provides that every person having at the commencement of this Act the control, custody or possession of any captive animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, 1[or animal article, trophy or uncured trophy] derived from such animal or salted or dried skins of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, shall, within thirty days from the commencement of this Act, declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer the number and description of the animal, or article of the foregoing description under his control, custody or possession and the place where such animal or article is kept. Section 40(2) stipulates that no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession, sell, offer for sale or otherwise transfer or transport any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or any uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal, or the salted or dried skins of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, except with the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer. Section 42 provides that the Chief Wild Life Warden may, for the purposes of section 40, issue a certificate of ownership in such form, as may be prescribed, to any person who, in his opinion, is in lawful possession of any wild animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy and may, where possible, mark, in the prescribed manner, such animal article, trophy or uncured trophy for purposes of identification: [Provided that before issuing the certificate of ownership in respect of any captive animal, the Chief Wild Life Warden shall ensure that the applicant has adequate facilities for housing, maintenance and upkeep of the animal.] 13. Section 43 deals with regulation of transfer of animal, etc. Section 43 deals with regulation of transfer of animal, etc. Section 43(1) provides that no person having in his possession captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy in respect of which he has a certificate of ownership shall transfer by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature, such animal or article or trophy or uncured trophy. (2) Where a person transfers or transports from the State in which he resides to another State or acquires by transfer from outside the State, any such animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy in respect of which he has a certificate of ownership, he shall, within thirty days of the transfer or transport, report the transfer or transport to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer within whose jurisdiction the transfer or transport is effected. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply-- (a) to tail feather of peacock and the animal article or trophies made therefrom; (b) to transfer of captive animals between recognised zoos subject to the provisions of section 38-I, and transfer amongst zoos and public museums.] 14. In the decision reported in [ 2015(3) KHC 351 ], Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tvm & anr. v. Secretary, Paramekkavu Devaswom, placed by the learned Special Government Pleader in paragraph Nos.26, 27 and 30, the legal position is made so emphatically clear as under: “26. Transportation of an animal by a person having ownership certificate does not attract S.43(1), but for transporting an elephant as per S.40(2), previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden is necessary. The object and purpose of incorporating such provision of previous permission is that the Chief Wild Life Warden has to be aware that the animal like elephant is being transported from one State to another State. So that, in case of need, appropriate measures can be taken with regard to elephant inter – transfer. This is to give protection to the animal as well as to the public in general. If the submission made by learned counsel for the writ petitioner is accepted that only a report is sufficient under S.40(2), the elephant as well as the public in general shall be exposed to great danger. 27. This is to give protection to the animal as well as to the public in general. If the submission made by learned counsel for the writ petitioner is accepted that only a report is sufficient under S.40(2), the elephant as well as the public in general shall be exposed to great danger. 27. In any view of the matter, there being a specific and clear provision of S.40(2), which also clearly encompasses transport of any animal specified in Schedule I or part II of Schedule II, the said provision cannot be given a go by resorting to S.43(2). We, thus, are of the view that prior permission from the Chief Wild Lif Warden, Thiruvananthapuram is required for transferring an elephant from Bihar to Thiruvananthapuram as requested by the petitioner. Hence, Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner has to be considered and appropriate decision is to be taken. 30.I. S.43(1) of the Act prohibits transfer of an elephant by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature and no permission can be granted under S.40(2) for such transfer. The report of transfer or transportation to the Chief Wild Life Warden as contemplated under S.43(2) is applicable to those transfers or transportation, which have been effected with permission under S.40(2). Transfers or transportation, which are effected after previous permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden, are also to be reported under S.43(2) to the Chief Wild Life Warden within 30 days of the transfer or transportation. II. Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, all transfers of elephants by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature are prohibited. Transfer falling in other categories cannot be held to be prohibited and can be made with prior permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden as contemplated under S.40(2). III. The learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 28.08.2014 in WP(C) No.17848 of 2014 has not correctly interpreted S.43 of the Act, 1972. The learned Single Judge has erred in taking the view that after transfer or transport the only requirement is to report the transfer or transfer under S.43(2). Report as contemplated under S.43(2) is attracted in cases where transfers or transportation are effected with prior permission under S.40(2). The learned Single Judge has erred in taking the view that after transfer or transport the only requirement is to report the transfer or transfer under S.43(2). Report as contemplated under S.43(2) is attracted in cases where transfers or transportation are effected with prior permission under S.40(2). For transportation of an elephant from another State to Kerala or within the State of Kerala, prior permission is necessary under S.40(2) of the Act, 1972, for which application in prescribed form has to be submitted by the applicant to the Chief Wild Life Warden, who has to consider the nature of transaction and after considering relevant facts and the scheme of the Act, take a decision on the application.” 15. Thus the legal position is emphatically clear on the point that S.43(1) of the Act prohibits transfer of an elephant by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature and no permission can be granted under S.40(2) for such transfer. The report of transfer or transportation to the Chief Wild Life Warden as contemplated under S.43(2) is applicable to those transfers or transportation, which have been effected with permission under S.40(2). Transfers or transportation, which are effected after previous permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden, are also to be reported under S.43(2) to the Chief Wild Life Warden within 30 days of the transfer or transportation. Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, all transfers of elephants by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature are prohibited. Transfer falling in other categories cannot be held to be prohibited and can be made with prior permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden as contemplated under S.40(2). Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, all transfers of elephants by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature are prohibited. Transfer falling in other categories cannot be held to be prohibited and can be made with prior permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden as contemplated under S.40(2). Section 51 of the Act specifically provides that (1) Any person who [contravenes any provision of this Act [(except Chapter VA and section 38J)]] or any rule or order made thereunder or who commits a breach of any of the conditions of any licence or permit granted under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine which may extend to [twenty-five thousand rupees], or with both: [Provided that where the offence committed is in relation to any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or meat of any such animal or animal article, trophy or uncured trophy derived from such animal or where the offence relates to hunting in a sanctuary or a National Park or altering the boundaries of a sanctuary or a National Park, such offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees: Provided further that in the case of a second or subsequent offence of the nature mentioned in this sub-section, the term of the imprisonment shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees.] [(1A) Any person who contravenes any provisions of Chapter VA, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [three years] but which may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than [ten thousand rupees].] [(1B) Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 38J, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that in the case of a second or subsequent offence the term of imprisonment may extend to one year or the fine may extend to five thousand rupees.] (2) When any person is convicted of an offence against this Act, the Court trying the offence may order that any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, trophy, [uncured trophy, meat, ivory imported into India or an article made from such ivory, any specified plant, or part or derivative thereof] in respect of which the offence has been committed, and any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon, used in the commission of the said offence be forfeited to the State Government and that any licence or permit, held by such person under the provisions of this Act, be cancelled. (3) Such cancellation of licence or permit or such forfeiture shall be in addition to any other punishment that may be awarded for such offence. (4) Where any person is convicted of an offence against this Act, the Court may direct that the licence, if any, granted to such person under the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), for possession of any arm with which an offence against this Act has been committed, shall be cancelled and that such person shall not be eligible for a licence under the Arms Act, 1959, for a period of five years from the date of conviction. [(5) Nothing contained in section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), shall apply to a person convicted of an offence with respect to hunting in a sanctuary or a National Park or of an offence against any provision of Chapter VA unless such person is under eighteen years of age.] 16. Here admittedly the certificate of ownership, as provided under Section 42 is in the name of the revision petitioner. But she transferred the ownership and all right pertaining to the elephant in the name of D.Praveen as on 05.08.2010. The said transfer is against the mandate of Section 43(1) of the Wild Life Act. Thereafter as borne out from Annexures V, VI, VII and VIII, the elephant was handed over to A.V.Prasanth on the guise of transfer. While D.Praveen was dealing with the elephant, he parted the elephant to one Sreejith; Sreejith to Prasanth; Prasanth again to Praveen and Praveen again to Prasanth. It is also submitted that thereafter the elephant was offered to be sold to Dr.Amrith Prasad for Rs.1,10,25,000/- against the restrictions contained in Section 43(1) of the Act and according to Dr.Amrith Prasad he was cheated by the accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the case at the instance of Dr.Amrith Prasad was settled. 17. While so, the forest officials noticed the use of the elephant for commercial purpose and while so it was found in the custody of A.V.Prasanth without any legal certificate of ownership and accordingly the same was taken into custody by registering crime against him by the forest officials. 17. While so, the forest officials noticed the use of the elephant for commercial purpose and while so it was found in the custody of A.V.Prasanth without any legal certificate of ownership and accordingly the same was taken into custody by registering crime against him by the forest officials. As per Section 40(2) of the Act, no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession, sell, offer for sale or otherwise transfer or transport any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or any uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal, or the salted or dried skins of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, except with the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer and as per Section 40(2A), no person other than a person having a certificate of ownership, shall, after the commencement of the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (16 of 2003) acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, except by way of inheritance. 18. As per Section 40(2B), every person inheriting any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy under sub-section (2A) shall, within ninety days of such inheritance make a declaration to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer and the provisions of sections 41 and 42 shall apply as if the declaration had been made under sub-section (1) of section 40: Provided that nothing in sub-sections (2A) and (2B) shall apply to the live elephant. Thus the answer to question(a) is that a person who had control, custody or possession of any captive animal specified in Schedule I or part of Schedule II or animal article, or any uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal, or the salted or dried skin of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, after the commencement of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, shall follow the procedure provided under Section 40(1) of the Wild Life Act to declare the control, custody or possession. In answer to question (b), a person having certificate of ownership in relation to captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy by way of sale, custody or possession or otherwise, transfer or transport without the permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer can transfer or transport only with permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer as provided under Section 43(2) of the Wild Life Act. Question(c) is answered holding that under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, all transfers of elephants by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature are prohibited. Transfer falling in other categories cannot be held to be prohibited and can be made with prior permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden as contemplated under S.40(2). 19. Reverting back to question of interim custody, prima facie it appears that the transfer of ownership of the elephant by Bency Shaji in favour of D.Praveen is derogation to Section 43(1) of the Wild Life Act. So also the subsequent parting of ownership and possession. In fact, violation of Section 43(1) would attract penal consequences provided under Section 51 of the Act, which provides imprisonment for a term which may extent to 3 years or with fine which may extent to Rs.25,000/- or with both. 20. While passing the common order rejecting interim custody of the elephant, the learned Magistrate considered all these aspects relying on a decision of the Apex Court reported in [ 2007 (4) KHC 140 , Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., and observed as under: “9. In Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri & others v. Union of India and others 2007 (4) KHC 140 , Hon’ble High Court has held that “Sale, transfer and other dealings involving changings of hands of captive elephant can be done only with the approval and in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Chief Wild Life Warden. He will ensure that the purchases have required facilities to maintain captive elephant purchased by them”. In 2015 (3) KHC 351 Principal conservator of Forest, Tvm and another v. Secretary, Paramekavu Devaswom Hon’ble High Court held that “S.43(2) permits transfer of elephants, but such transfer can be allowed only if such transfer is not in commercial nature and the same has to be reported to chief wild life warden. In 2015 (3) KHC 351 Principal conservator of Forest, Tvm and another v. Secretary, Paramekavu Devaswom Hon’ble High Court held that “S.43(2) permits transfer of elephants, but such transfer can be allowed only if such transfer is not in commercial nature and the same has to be reported to chief wild life warden. Thus, transfer by way of valid gift can be allowed provided the transfer is reported to chief wild life warden”. Hence in the light of the above decisions also it is clear that dealings involving changing of hands of captive elephant and gift can be done only with the approval of Chief Wild Life Warden and other transfers of commercial nature are prohibited. Here the allegation against the accused is that the elephant was transferred without permission of Chief wild life warden or authorized officer and the transfer was not reported to the authorized officer and the accused transferred the elephant for commercial purpose. And the prosecution records and the records produced by A.V Prasanth, who is 4th accused in OR 4/20, in criminal MP 1367/2020 and 1368/2020 shows that the elephant was transferred by petitioner to Sri D.Praveen and D.Praveen in turn transferred the elephant to Sri Sreejith by way of gift deed and Sreejith gifted the elephant to A.V Prasanth @ Guruji Prasanth without obtaining permission from Chief Wild Life Warden or authorized officer. Even though the petitioner has stated that she has handed over the custody of the elephant to her uncle for the care and protection of the elephant and she is having ownership certificate in respect of the elephant “Balanarayanan”, the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that she has reported the transfer of elephant to authorized officer and obtained permission. The records also shows that the elephant was transferred to many hands without obtaining permission of authorized officer and it has reached the custody of A.V Prasanth @ Guruji Prasanth and elephant was seized from the possession of Guruji Prasanth by the forest officials. More over Criminal RP10/21 and 11/2021 are filed by Sri. A.V.Prasanth, the 1st accused in OR 4/20, against order of dismissal passed by this court in the petition filed by him for interim custody of elephant and it is pending before Hon’ble Sessions Court. More over Criminal RP10/21 and 11/2021 are filed by Sri. A.V.Prasanth, the 1st accused in OR 4/20, against order of dismissal passed by this court in the petition filed by him for interim custody of elephant and it is pending before Hon’ble Sessions Court. Hence in the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the custody of the elephant and I am not inclined to allow these petitions and these petitions are accordingly dismissed.” 21. In this matter, the petitioner parted the ownership of the elephant as per Annexure-VIII, which is prohibited and thereafter Sri A.V.Prasanth was found in illegal possession of the elephant. Therefore, prima facie the crime registered by the Forest officials is substantiated. 22. It is pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department that after possessing the elephant by A.V.Prasanth in violation of the provisions of the Act, again the elephant was used for commercial purposes, for which O.R No.1/2022 was registered by the Range Officer, Forest Department on the allegation that the said elephant was used for commercial purpose for the festival of Bhagavathi Temple, Monipally, Kottayam without permission of the forest officials. It is also submitted that when the statement of the mahout by name Sharon was recorded, he had given statement before the forest officials that he had worked as mahout of the elephant `Balanarayanan (Ganesh)’ for 3 years and he abstained from the said job when he met with an accident. Thereafter, he has been doing the job of mahout in relation to the elephant by name Ganesh (earlier name of Balanarayanan), from 2020 onwards and the elephant has been under the custody of A.V.Prasanth and during that tenure, the elephant was used for the festivals in Kalavamkode, Chellanam, Irumbanam and various places in Alleppey district. Further the statement of one B.Baburaj, the president of Devi Temple, Monipally also was recorded and he had given the evidence that `Ganesan’ was used for the festival in connection with the temple since the Devaswom Board failed to provide the elephants in connection with the festival. Further the statement of one B.Baburaj, the president of Devi Temple, Monipally also was recorded and he had given the evidence that `Ganesan’ was used for the festival in connection with the temple since the Devaswom Board failed to provide the elephants in connection with the festival. Thus it appears that even though the forest officials registered crime No.2/2020 and took the custody of the elephant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 39, 40, 42, 43, 48A, 49 and 51 of the Act, in view of the custody given to Praveen on kaichit with undertaking to return the elephant to the Department for rehabilitation, he has been possessing and using the same for commercial purposes against the mandate of Section 43(1) of the Act. Therefore, the change of ownership and transfer is, in fact, by mode of consideration for commercial nature and the same is strictly prohibited. In view of the matter, the dismissal of the interim custody applications by the learned Magistrate, that too, after dismissal of similar applications at the instance of A.V.Prasanth, who has been using the elephant for commercial purposes, and its confirmation by the learned Sessions Judge, is perfectly in order and the said order doesn’t require interference at the hands of this Court by exercising the power of revision. In view of the matter, both the Revision Petitions shall stand dismissed with liberty to the forest officials to take possession of the elephant for the purpose of rehabilitation till culmination of the criminal cases, on trail, by the competent Magistrate Courts, in accordance with law.