IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARAWAD Dated the 6th day of April 2011 :BEPORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE : V.JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7273 / 2010 BETWEEN: Samarpan Swashaya & Samaja Seva Sangh, rept. by its member Shri Venkatraman, Sb Janardhan Vaidhya, Aged about 34 years, 0cc: Agriculture, R/o Mullemakki, Chandavara, Kumta, Karawara District. Petitioner (By Sri Venkatesh M.Kharvi, Advocate.) AND: 1. Shri Mohammad Ismail, Sb Kasim Sawre, Age: 40 years, 0cc: Business, R/o Boota Garden, Takova Street, Bhatkal. 2. Sri Abdul Nazir, S/o Motishyam Mohiddin, Age: 45 years, 0cc: Business, R/o Bhatkal. 3. The State of Karnataka, rept. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Dharawad. Respondents (By Smt. Hemalekha K.S., Advocate for R-1 & R2, Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, HCGP for R3.) 2 Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Karawara, in Crl.R.P.No. 109/2009 dated 1.12.2009 and set aside the order of the JMFC, Bhatkal, in Murudeshwara Police Station Crime No. 114/2009 dated 13.11.2009 and consequently order for releasing the custody of the cattle to the petitioner-Sangha or to any governmental agencies. This petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following: ORDER This matter is heard finally on merits by consent of both the parties. 2. Petitioner Samarpana Swasahaya & Samaja Seva Sangha is before this court being aggrieved by the revisional court dismissing the revision filed by it against the order passed by the trial court in respect of custody of 23 cattle. The trial court had allowed the application filed by R- 1 and R-2 for interim custody of the cattle in question and the said application was allowed by the trial court on certain conditions and the 3 interim custody of the cattle was given to R- 1 and R-2 subject to the final order of the court. It is this order that was called in question by the petitioner before the revisional court in Crl.R.P.No. 109/2009. The learned judge of the revisional court, after hearing both sides, held that the petition filed itself was not maintainable and moreover, it was only an interim order passed by the trial court giving interim custody of cattle to R- 1 and R-2 and, therefore, the question of the revision petition being considered does not arise and the petition was dismissed. 3. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner-Sangha is engaged in taking care of animals and the interest of the animals will have to be protected by preventing the animals from being slaughtered and, therefore, the revisional court was not justified in dismissing the revision petition. 4. The facts in short are that, a case was registered by Murudeshwara Police Station in Crime No. 114/2009 against one Sameer and two others under Sections 4, 5 4 and 9 of the Karnataka Prevention of Animal Sacrifices Act, 1959 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 and Section 192 of the M.V.Act and it was alleged in the complaint that on 12.11.2009 at about 10.45 a.m., near Bastimakki Cross, Murudeshwara, the complainant saw 23 oxen being carried in two lorries from Honnavara side towards Bhaktal without proper pass or permit and on being questioned, the drivers of the lorries told the complainant that the oxen were being taken to the slaughter houses at Bhatkal. The complainant arrested the accused persons and seized the vehicles along with the oxen and then the accused were produced before the trial court. 5. R-l herein filed an application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for release of 12 cattle and R2 also filed a similar application for release of 11 cattle to them and the trial court, after considering the said applications, gave interim custody of the cattle to the respective applicants on certain conditions. It is this order that Th was called in question before the revisional court by petitioner- Sangha. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Sangha submitted that, all that the petitioner is interested is in the welfare of the cattle and his apprehension is that, the respondents may take the cattle for the purpose of slaughtering and this should be prevented. 7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for R- 1 and R-2 is that, the petitioner has got no locus standi in the matter because, the applications were filed by R-1 and R-2 before the trial court and the trial court has passed only an interim order and not a final order and, therefore, no revision could have been maintained by the petitioner and, apart from that, against the order of the trial court granting interim custody till the final order is passed, the State, which was the only respondent before the trial court, did not prefer any revision petition. Merely because the police had entrusted the cattle to the petitioner herein, that cannot give a right to the petitioner-Sangha to claim interim custody of the cattle. 8. Having thus heard both sides, in my view, the order passed by the revisional court does not call for any interference for the following reasons. 9. The first one is that, the petitioner-Sangha did not make arn application before the trial court for interim custody of the cattle and it was Rl and R-2. who had filed the applications. The second reason is that, the said applications filed by the said respondents came to be allowed by the trial court against which the State, which was the only respondent before the trial court, did not prefer any revision. The third reason is that, the order passed by the trial court was only an interim order subject to final order of the court and, apart from that, the trial court has also imposed certain conditions on the respondents and more particularly, the trial court has directed R-l and R-2 not to alienate the cattle in favour of anybody during the pendencv of the case. 7 10. In the light of the aforesaid factors, this petition is not at all maintainable. However, as the petitioner Sangha has got apprehension that the cattle, which are given to the interim custody of R- 1 and R-2, may be slaughtered, in addition to the conditions imposed by the trial court, it is further directed that R- 1 and R-2 shall not take the cattle which are given to their custody for slaughtering purpose or any other purpose and they shall produce the cattle before the trial court as and when the trial court directs them to do so. Since the trial court has passed only an interim order pending final order, it is obvious that R- 1 and R-2 cannot either sell the cattle to any one nor shall cause any harm to the cattle. 11. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed. Since the matter involves the welfare of the cattle seized, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case itself on merits before 30.6.2011. sal ckc/- jpG’E