1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 12454-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.12.2008 *** Gauraksha Dal .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Shakun Kumar, Advocate for Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the orders dated 26.3.2008 and 5.5.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala respectively vide which 26 oxen recovered in case FIR No.110 dated 23.3.2008, under Sections 4/8 of the Punjab Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 have been ordered to be released on superdari in favour of respondents No.4. Respondent No.2 was earlier served but none had appeared on his behalf while notices of respondents No.3 and 4 did not receive back in either way. In the reply filed on behalf of State, the matter has been left on this Court for passing any appropriate order. Respondents No.2 to 4 have been booked in the aforesaid FIR under the provisions of Act of 1955 and 1960 ibid on the allegations that they were taking away the said animals for slaughtering purposes in an inhuman condition. But, surprisingly, the oxen in question have been released in their favour being the owner by the Courts below. No doubt it is the matter of evidence that as to whether the said persons were carrying the animals in question for slaughtering purposes or otherwise and the Court 2 below has directed the private respondents to produce them on each and every date of hearing, but in the considered opinion of this Court this exercise is not only authorizing a cat of guard the milk, but also increasing the agony of speech-less animals, who have to accompany the respondents on each and every date of hearing in the Court, as ordered and undertaken. The petitioner is the complainant in the aforesaid FIR and a society working for the cause of animals and thus, they are capable of providing shelter to the oxen in question. It appears that both the courts below have failed to consider the matter from this angle and as such both the orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law and are accordingly set aside. It is directed that the custody of oxen in question be immediately handed over to the petitioner Society and in case there is any resistance on the part of private respondents or anybody else, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court below, which shall provide assistance in due course. Petition stands allowed accordingly. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 11,2008 Jiten