T¥! ^-. ingse IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH" AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. ,5^3 / 2011 fS.B.) PETITIONERS Owner of fhe cattle AVN ....s\"j,^ -'^(bv^""rkKt>^<w~ >y^'\L-vv^-"' ^ IK^ l»-" ?y'l'>"\.l. ' "^ .-.•M'6 wfywf" Wi.vy ^.,^ y#ft- .....--""•^^ RESPONDENTS 1. Ashok Kumar, S/o Rampyare, aged about 28 years. 2. Ramakant Yadav, S/o Bachan Prasad Yadav, aged about 38 years. Both are residents of Mohan Nagar, Dhamdha Road, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Bhuneshwar Yadav, aged about 29 years, R/o Ghoshi Khapda Mode, P.S. Ghoshi, Distt. lanabad (Bihar). l/o Satish Yadav, aged about 35 years, R/o Raja faScvi Bigha, P.S. Masori,. Distt. Patna A - , ^.' ' (Bihar). 4. Littu Kumar, S/o Kalu Yadav, aged about 21 years, R/o Devra, P.S. Ghoshi, Distt. Jahanabad (Bihar). A.??- -s- --' PETITION UNDER SECTION ?83-OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1 i K ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Cr.M.P.No.583/2011 Petitioners (Owner of the cattle) Respondents Ashok Kumar and Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri B. P. Singh along with Shri N. K. Chatterji, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 09-09-2011) Heard on admission. 2. Considering that this petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by rejection of his application for grant of interim custody of cattle, the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 27-08-2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur, by which, order dated 18- 08-2011 passed bythe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, District Bilaspur, rejecting application of the petitioners for grant of interim custody, has been affirmed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cattle have been seized for alleged commission of offence under Section 11 ofthe Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960( In short "the Act of 1960"). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are owners of the cattle. He submits that the petitioners did not suffer any previous conviction. Learned counsel also submitted that even if the allegations are found proved, the petitioners may be imposed fine under the provisions of law. He further submits that the learned Court below have rejected the application without considering the preferential right of the petitioners to take interim custody of the cattle during the pendency of the prosecution. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court have taken into consideration that the petitioners have been alleged for commission of offence under Section 11 of the Act of 1960 and that in the event of grant of interim custody, the cattle may not be protected, have rightly rejected the application and there is no illegality. 6. In the case of Gomufcht Sewa Dharn Vs. State of Chhattisgarh andfour others, 2005(1) 1S.P.H.T. (CG), the entitlement ofthe owner ofthe cattle to receive interim custody was considered. 7. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gomufehi Sewa JDham (supra), 1 find that the Court below have not properly appreciated the claim of the petitioner to get the interim custody of the cattle. The petitioners have placed on record the receipt of purchase of cattle. 1 also find that the Court below have committed illegality in rejecting petitioners application without taking into consideration the legal position stated in the case of Gontukhl Sewa Dham (supra). 8. Accordingly, the order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hereby set aside. The petitioner's application for grant of interim custody is allowed. However, interim custody of the cattle shall be given to the petitioners subject to fulfillment of stringent conditions, which are required to be imposed ori the them, as under:- (a) in order to secure compliance of th?. Court's order, learned Magistrate, while accepting the Supurdginama sha!i also ask petitioners to show sufficient immovable property in their names and put that property as security for implementation of the Court's -•-—^ ~"'?[;1'.^/ order, so that in case they fail to abide by the conditions of the Supurdginama, the Court shall have right to recover that amount of Supurdginama from the said property; (b) identification marks of each and every cattle in question, shal] be noted before handing over the cattle to the petitioners; (c) petitioners shall specify the area as per the Court's satisfaction where the cattle are to be kept during the pendency of the trial and they shall not move/take the cattle out of the area to be prescribed by the learned magistrate without his prior permission; (d) petitioners shall not commit any offence against the cattle as envisaged in the Act of1960; (e) petitioners shall produce the cattle before the Court as and when required by the Court; (f) if during the pendency of trial any of the cattle falls seriously ill and dies, then the body of the same shall be photographed and body of such animal shall not be disposed of without information to Police Station, Katghora and information to the Magistrate of the same shall be submitted at the earliest. 9. In case, the petitioners have violated the conditions as aforesaid, the Court below shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders of production of the cattle and its interim custody. 10. In view of foregoing, the petition is allowed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane £-13