IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 37 OF 2010 MR. RAVI SHANKAR BETKAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE THROUGH P.I. AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. N. Teles, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. Mr. A. Palekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 17th August, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. The petitioner herein is an accused against whom Crime No.55/2010 has been registered under Section 379 IPC at the instance of respondent no.2. The dispute between the parties is as regards the possession of the German Shepherd dog, the custody of which at the stage of Section 457 of the Code (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) has been given to the respondent no.2. In fact, it appears that both the said parties had filed the applications for custody of the said dog, which applications have been disposed of by the learned Magistrate by two separate orders of the same date i.e. 3/04/2010. The learned Magistrate has imposed certain conditions and handed over the custody of the said dog to respondent no.2. That has also been done with no objection from the Investigating Officer, who had registered the case against the petitioner/accused. 3. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that according to respondent no.2, the theft had taken place on 13/02/2010, but the complaint came to be filed only on 25/03/2010. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had photographs of the dog which were taken in the year 2005. It can be seen from the records that the petitioner was an visitor to the house of respondent no.2. It can also be seen, from the statement of the Head Constable that when he went along with respondent no.2, the dog approached respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has also filed several photographs which show that the dog in question is in the Company of the family of respondent no.2. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 state that all the photographs on record pertain to the same dog. 4. Be that as it may, considering the facts of the case, in my view, no interference is called for with the impugned order by which the custody of the dog has been entrusted to respondent no.2 at whose behest the crime has been registered and the dog attached and handed over in the custody of respondent no.2. If at all the dog in question was in the custody of the petitioner, at the time of attachment as contended on behalf of the petitioner by learned Counsel, it was prima facie as an object of theft, and on that basis, the petitioner would not be entitled to its possession at this stage. 5. In my view, this is not a case for interference under Section 482 of the Code. Criminal Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH