HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Apj^Ilcants Cs. M.P. No.125/2007 1. Maa Suigh S/o Sibo raixi Netaoi, aged about 28 years. 2. Dular singh S/o Sadaa Ram gada, aged about 38 yeara. 3, Paacham gada S/o sibo ram gada, aged about 26 yeax's. 4. Eka ram S/ o Sibo raai gada, aged about 33 years. 5. Siuidai* S/o Kuninan. siagh gada, aged about 34 years. 6, Maya ram. S/o kartik Age 35 years, 7. Birbal S/o kartik raxa gada, aged about 30 years, 8. Ishwar S/o pareshwar Sori^ aged about 28 years, 9, Rikhi ram S/o kaitik ram gada, aged about 30 years. AU resident of viUage khajurpadar, poMce Station and tahsil Deobhog, distt, Raipur(C.G.). Versus Nosi -Applicaait State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chura, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). APPLICATION U/S 482 OF THE CODE OF CREMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973. (SB :Hoa?ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present. Shri Ashok Patil, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/non-applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 11/8/2009) 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of fhe Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the code1) agaiast the order dated 5/9/06 passed by tlie Pirst Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur io. Crmiinal revision N0. 27/06 affiraiiag tiie order dated 2/8/06 passed by tiie Judicial Magistorate First Class, Ganyabaiid in crimiaal case N0. 38/06 whereby learaed Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadyabaad has disinissed the appUcation for mterim custody of fh.e catUe by fhe petitioner one of fhe accused ia the case of offence punishable under "^- Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 & 11 of the C.G. Agricultural Preservation Act, Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners subniits tiiat petitioners are owner of tlie cattle entitied for possession but court below has denied fhe uiteriin custody. Leanied counsel for the State/respondent opposed fhe petition aad subniits that petitioners are accused ia fhe case aad cattie cannot be given to flie accused ia case of offence punishable under the provisions of C.G. Agricultural Cattie Presenration Act. The ofience agaiiist Uie petitioners are fhat ttiey were takuig cattle for slaughtermg to aiiofher State i.e. Orrisa aad were found iti possession of flie cattle. The aUegation aad ia its nature against fhe petitioner does not entiUed the petitioners for iiiteriin custody tlie Court. below has rightiy rejected the petition, I do not find aay scope for interference iii fhe order impugned. ConsequeuUy, fhis petition is Uable to be dismissed aiid it is hereby disinissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^-