IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal. Misc. Petition No. 6^^) / 2010 PETITIONER <^..^ ^^sy ...-•-'. ^•^Y^-"' ».^-:"rt^-"\^>^ ..•'•"' ^s" '^*-'" ^c 'V ' Versus ^lnate 8@n^ Parshadi S/o Shri Tawal Singh , by caste Gupta, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Deori, Thana Themi, Tahsil Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur (MP). RESPONDENT The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Mungeli, Dista-ict Bilaspur (C.G.) HETmONUNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J PETITIONER RESPONDENT Cr.M.P No.689/2010 Parshadi Versus The State of Chhattisgarh (Petition u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.I Appearance: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 10.09.2010) -r' Heard. .-, 2. This pedtion under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved bysthe order dated 24.7.2010 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), MungeU in Criminal Revision No. 13/2010 by which order dated 18.6.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, rejecting application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C preferred by. the pedtioner/applicant for interim custody of 27 cattle on supurdnama, has been confirmed. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant, immediately after the date of seizure of the cattle, had moved an application for release of cattle and for grant of their interim custody by placing on record the doczynents relating to purchase of the cattle from .1f9- -2- the different markets and has also placed on record document relating to registration and other certificates which establish that the seized cattle are under the ownership of the applicant. He further submits that the case of the applicant is that out of three persons, arrested on the accusation, one is the driver of the vehicle used for transportation and other two persons are servants of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the rejecdon of the application is not justified, as the reason assigned for rejection is that the applicant has failed to establish his connection with the accused persons as also has failed to establish that he is the owner of the cattle whichwere seized. 4. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the State submits that the cattle were seized while during transit on a report made to the police that the cattle are being transported for the purposes of slaughter. He further submits that the applicant could not place any material before the Courts 5elow to establish the identity of the cattle, which he alleged to have purchased and in support of which documents relating to purchase and registration were placed on record and, therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the application. 5. From the documents, which have been placed on record and which have been referred to by the Court below in its order while rejecting the application, it is found that the applicant placed before the Court below the documents relating to registration as also purchase of catde from the various markets. Taking into consideration that the applicant has pla£eddocuments relating to he being.-registered as deal§rof cattle and various docunients reladng to purchase of cattle from the cattle market and that no other claimant has so far appeared before the Court below claiming ownership of the cattle, I am of the opinion that the Court -3- Sf--...' li» '^••..jy.4 Praveen below was not justified in rejecting the application only on the ground that the applicant has failed to establish connection with the persons arrested and who were the accused in the present case. 6. Accordingly the petidon is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.7.2010 is set aside. 7. It is ordered that the cattle shall be released in favour of the petitioner with the condition fhat the petitioner shall keep the catde in proper condition and fhe same shall be produced before the Court as and when directed. Before release of catde, proper identification shall be inade and for that purpose, the Court below niay direct the concerned Govt. doctors to carry out such verification. In addition, fhe Court below shall obtain proper bond on such terms as may be directed by it for production of the cattle. 'Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge l'