IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCrARH AT BILASPUR PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CMMINAL PROCEDURE Cr.M.P.No. ^ OF 2009 PETITIONERS Applicants .^ \^:\K^ °?- ^.v'^^ ^^^ y' ,...^-a RESPONDENT r^^^ h > " <'% :1) Ahsan Khan, S/o. Yaqub Khan, aged about 25 years, Resident of Village Dadgaon, Tahsil and District Jashpur (C.G.) :2) Anis Ansari, S/o. Idris Ansari, aged about 45 years, Resident of Village Dadgaon, Tahsil and District Jashpur (C.G.) :3) Mahmood Khan, S/o. Ibrahim Khan, aged about 35 years, Resident of Darji Mohalla, Jashpur, Tahsil and District Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS : State of Chhattisgarh through Officer-in-charge, Police Station, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) .\^l S.8. ^^h \ i PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE /-^ R.^.. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARW AT KEIASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritlnker Diwakep CR.M.P. No. 382 of 2009 Ahsan Khon A others. PETTTIONERS Applicants RESPON&ENT Vowus State of Chhattjsgarh Shri K.A. Ansari, leamed Senior Advocate wtth Shri Badruddin Khan, counsej forthe petitioners. Shri Pankaj Shnvastava, Panel Lawyer for the^ate. PETITtOfst UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE COE>E OF CRIMINAL PROCEOUftE O R D E R (1901.2010) Heard on odmission. Present petition is directed against the order doEted 8.7.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Jashpur m Crjrninal Revision No. 06/2009 whereby leame4 court- below hois dismissed the revision preferred by the petition^rs ogainst the order doted 2.6.2009 passed by Chief Judicial AAagi^trote, Jashpur Nagar. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the pqtitioners are involved in the business of sale and purchase of cattle and on the date of incident, these cattte were jjtegally detained by the police authoriti^ and subsequently the soime have been seized on the ground thot the petitioners have commitl'ed the offence under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 10 of Chhattisgarh Knashok Pashu Parirokkshan Adhiniyam, 2004 (for shorl- "the Act"). He submits that both the court's below hwe erred in law in tf^r^ ^z rejecting the applicotion of the petitioners for getting the cattle on Supurdiginoima, by holding thot the animals were being tcd<en for slaughtering. According to him, the animale were purchased by the petitioners for Rs.5 lakhs and if cinimflils are not given to them on Supurdjginou'na, there is every possibility that some of the animals may loose their life ond thereby petitioners would suffer heovy fimmcial loss. He also submits that tjjj dote eyen challon has not been filed <md, therefore, the animals may be given to them. 3. On the other hond, counsel for the State submits thort- animals were taken by the petitioners for slaughtermg and on atl-empt wos made to take all the animate to the Stote of Jharkhond from Stat'eof Chhottisgarh. He submits thort- when the animals were seized, their conditions were path^tic and, therefore, the ccxse was registered agcimst the petitioners. He further submits thort- onimals have b^en giwn to "©ouraksha Samiti" and the some has been done in accordanee with the provision of Section 7 of the Act. He also submits thcrt' the petitioners are resident of Jhcrkhand and t<? this effect categorical finding has been given by the leamed Magistrate in its order dated 2.6.2009. He further submits thoit apprehensjon of the petitioner in respect of not taking proper care of the animals by "GourakshQ SQmiti, Jashpur" is ill founded ond there is no basis for the same. 4. I have heard counsel for the pcrl'jes cmd perused tbe material wailable on record. 5. I find no reason to interfere in the present petition fited under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proce^lure as the ^ ^ (^ leamed Magistrate as weti as the Revisional Gourl" has passed the very detailedand reasoned order. 6. It is, however, expected from the prosecution to file challon expeditiously, if already, not ftted and the trial Court- is also expected to conclude the trial os early as possible in accordance with law. 7. With the above observat-ions, the petition stanels disposed of. Pritinker Diwaker Judge