SCR.A/246920/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2469 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 & 2 YES; 3 to 5 NO ========================================================= NARODA MAHAJAN PARABADI & KHODA DHOR PANJARAPOLE TRUST - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NM KAPADIA for Applicant: 1,MR HEMANT B RAVAL for Applicant : 1, MR IM PANDYA ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, MR ASHOK K PADIA for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 13/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner, original respondent in Criminal Revision Application No.161 of 2007, has challenged order dated 15.12.2007 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, whereby the order of the trial Court denying SCR.A/246920/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT custody of cattle to respondent No.2 was reversed and the livestock in question was ordered to be delivered to the revisionist on several conditions. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr.N.M.Kapadia, appearing for the petitioner, that respondent No.2 was likely to take the livestock for slaughter and commit another offence. He further submitted that additional and stricter conditions were required to be imposed, if at all the livestock was to be returned to the person who was already accused of committing cruelty on the animals. It was submitted that the animals in question were found to have been carried by the respondent in a truck without any room for any movement and without making any provision for fodder or water for them. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr.Padia, appearing for respondent No.2, that he was prepared to abide by the conditions imposed in the impugned order and such other conditions as may be imposed by this Court. He further submitted that the respondent concerned was not carrying the cattle to slaughter house and the conditions imposed upon him would prevent any further cruelty to the animals. 2. Since no one else has claimed custody or possession of the livestock in question and the respondent is only allowed to have interim custody of the animals by the impugned order, the present petition is not required to be entertained for interfering with the impugned order. 3. At the end of arguments learned counsel and learned A.P.P. having agreed to substituting the conditions, the petition is allowed with the direction that the impugned order shall stand with the conditions substituted as under: SCR.A/246920/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT (i) The petitioner shall take proper care of the livestock which are given to the petitioner by way of interim custody. (ii) The petitioner shall have the livestock checked at the interval of every two month and obtain certificate in writing from the qualified Veterinary Officer of the area. (iii) The Veterinary Officer of the area concerned is hereby directed to inspect the livestock at the request of the petitioner once in every two month beginning from November, 2008 and issue certificate about the condition of the livestock. (iv) In case, in the intervening period, if any of the livestock dies, then, its body shall not be removed without calling the Veterinary Officer of the area, who shall certify the cause of death. (v) The livestock shall be given to the petitioner only for interim custody during pendency of the trial, and the petitioner shall produce the livestock before the trial Court as and when required, and he shall file an undertaking to that effect within 15 days from the date of this order. (vi) The petitioner shall also indicate in the undertaking that he will keep the livestock in good condition. (vii) While the livestock is handed over to the respondent, the petitioner herein shall attach to each of the animals some mark of identification or do tagging for their identification later on. (viii) The respondent herein shall file an undertaking also to the effect that if and when, during pendency of the criminal case, the livestock in question is required to be transported out of district Kheda, he shall make an application therefor seeking permission of the Court before which the criminal case may be pending. SCR.A/246920/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT (ix) The petitioner shall furnish bond in the sum of Rs.25,000=00 (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) before the trial Court for keeping safe custody of the livestock. The petitioner is directed that this condition shall also be incorporated in the undertaking. (x) Respondent No.2 shall furnish full address where he will keep the livestock in question, to the Court concerned and the police before release of the livestock. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service. Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)