{1} Cri. Application No.1084/2008 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1084 OF 2008 Navkar Goshala Panzrapol, Dhule APPLICANT A trust, registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1955, Through its Secretary, Rajendra Walchand Chaudhari Age-47 years, Occ-Social Work and Business R/o Galli No.4, House No.2829 Dhule VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through the Police Inspector, Songir police station, Songir Dist-Dhule 2. Moh.Abbas Moh.Hanif, Age-27 years, Occ-Business R/o Insampura, Near Vegetable Market, Malegaon, Tq-Malegaon, Dist-Nashik ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the applicant Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 11 th October 2011 {2} Cri. Application No.1084/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The present application, is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2008 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2 Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No. 42/2007. By the impugned order, the Revisional Court has handed over the interim custody of 25 animals to present respondent No.2, who has not participated in the present application though duly served. 3. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of the present application, may briefly be stated thus- On 02.01.2007, Songir Police staff had intercepted a vehicle, which was illegally carrying 25 animals. Accordingly, an offence was registered at Crime No.2/2007 u/s 11 (d) of the Prevention of {3} Cri. Application No.1084/2008 Cruelty to Animals Act. Initially, the said animals were taken charge of by the police, who subsequently handed over the custody of the said animals to the present applicant. It appears that respondent No.2 had moved an application before the JMFC, Dhule seeking custody of the said animals. However, the learned JMFC, had turned down the request of respondent No.2 by observing that the animals are safe in the custody of the present applicant, vide order dated 21.03.2007. It further appears that being aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2007, respondent No.2 filed Criminal Revision Application No.42/2007 before Sessions Court, Dhule. It appears that learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Dhule by the impugned order dated 02.02.2008 allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial magistrate. 4. In this background, heard learned counsel for the parties. The only question raised before this Court is that when admittedly the custody of the said animals was with the applicant and hence the applicant was necessary party to the Criminal Revision Application No.42/2007. Admittedly, respondent No.2 did {4} Cri. Application No.1084/2008 not make the applicant as party respondent in Criminal Revision No.42/2007. The only grievance of the applicant is that in view of the fact that the applicant was having custody of the said animals, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the applicant before handing over custody of the said animals to respondent No.2. In the premise, it is urged to remand the matter back to the Revisional Court with direction to hear the applicant and then to pass the necessary order in accordance with law. Learned APP left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 5. Perusal of the record shows that when the order came to be passed by the learned Magistrate, the said animals were in the custody of the applicant. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant is not made party in the criminal revision application. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order is passed by the revisional court without affording any opportunity to the applicant. In the premise, the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order impugned is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sessions Judge, Dhule with direction to hear the revision afresh by adding the applicant {5} Cri. Application No.1084/2008 as party respondent and giving him opportunity of hearing. Considering the age of this application, learned Revisional Court is directed to dispose of the revision within the period of 3 months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute as indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/criapln1084-08