@ HIGH CGURT @F {il-IHATTESGARE XE EELASPUR QRgME. ¥§Qq 149f20gg v gE : Hon’ble Mr. T.§1’. Shawna, J“ §ETYEI©H UNDER gEC‘TEQE 452 OF THE CRuP.C. Preseat z Shri Dinash RKTiwari, counsel for the applicaxlt. Shri UKS Chanda, Palml lawyer for the Staio. QRAL ORDER (Passsd on 9m May, 2008) This Eaatiu'on under Soction 482 of the CLPC. {in short ‘Code’) is clirected against the order dated 25.22008 passed by the Judicial Magietrate First Class, Canlp Kawardha £11 CrCase No. l202i2007 whereby the lem‘ned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, after holding the non-applicants No. 2 fin 3 guilty under Section 3/ 181 axld 66; 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 11 (1) a, c 8:, d of the. Prevention of Cruelty i0 Animals Act, sentenced them with fine amount. EETITIOEER Kashav Gausshala, Lohara, Black Pandariya, District Kabiniham, its Sacretaly Shri Maheshi fhrough Ram, Son of Lat€ Bhukharu Ram, agrid about 53 yaa'rs Versus: RESPQHDENT$ 1. Siam 0f Chhattisgarh, fhrough SHO PQiiCE Station Painiariya, District Kabirciham 2. NauShad Ahmad, s01: of Shamshad Ahmad, agad about 8O years, resic'imzj of Saggmu, PS. Kanz‘ila, distt‘ Muzaffaluagar, UP 3. Badluza v‘Sheikh, 503: of Bablu Shaikh, ags§ about 28 years, msidént of AEpur, 333‘ vishnupur, DiSt’i. Chovis, Parkma, Koikata 2. While passing the judgm‘exlt impugned, hamai Judicial MagiStrats Firs‘t Class has, also dimctcd that th€ sgized cattlf: ba auc’iional through regismmd Goshaah/Gosadan/ GO Sewa Scmmi. 3 Th6 ordsr is challsngad 011 The gmumfl. that th€ catt1€ was giver; 1'11 Supurdnama to tha pvst‘m'oner but while passing the judgment impugntid, trig} Court has not awardsd any cost for care and maintenance of the cattle in terms of provisisn of Section 7 and ’9 of the CG Agm’cultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and thereby committed iL‘teganty‘ 4. Heard. counsel for the parties. Judgment 1'mpugned perused. 5. It is argued on behai‘ of the appEcant that '29 cattle Weye given in supurdnama to the petitioner for their custody during the pendency of the tn'al but at the time of passing the judgment, trial Court has fajied to make any provision for the cost for Care ant‘; maintenance of the cattle as required 'Ltnder Section 7 and 9 of the CG Agncnltul‘al Prevention Act, 2004. After passing the judgment, tu‘al Court is not competent to amend 01‘ akev the judgment except to coxtect the clerical and ayithmetical a It is also argued that after passing of judgment, having no provisione for expensesto Care and Maintenance of the cattle, except to file petition under Section 482 of the Code, no remedy is available to the applic&1t. 6. Reh‘ance is placed in the matter of Mime Knmari £45 anatiwr Vsg $tate @f Bing” wad Others, 3006(4} $526 359, wherein it has been held that the Conit is not competent to alter the judgment except to correct the Clerical or ai‘ithmetical errors in accordance with the sub section 362 of the Cr. P. C. 7. Trial Court has not made. any provisions for the expenses incurred for Care and Manitenance of the cattle given in Supurdnaina to the petitioner but the trial Court has directed that the cattle be sold from registered Goshaala/Gosadan/Go Sewn Samiii. The applicant has not 1 madE: any application for €xpens€s as incunmd 1'11 Care am]. Maiilmnance of ths cattle. 8. L€a1nsd counssl for the petitioner submits that Even he tiid 1101 wallt to apply befom th€ trial court far making provisiorls: for tha €Xp€ns€s for Care and Maintenance of the cattle. 9. On The other hand, judgment is supported on behalf of the respondent No. 1. . 10. In accordance wi‘rh the sub Section 7 of the Act, the cattle are required to be in onstody of Goshaala/ Gosadan or Goraksharz Sansthaan and the person inchaxge of the Gosctdan may 1evy such charges as may be prescribed, for Care and Maintenance of Agricultural Cattle Whose custody was given to the institution under Section 7 from their owners \ Unless the petitioner appiies before the Rial Court for making the provisions for expenses, trial Court is not obhged to pass any orcler. Trial Court has not committed any megahty in the judgment impugned. l2. Consequentiy, the-t petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/— T.P. SHARMA Judge}