R.Fayashkhan, Aged 45 Years v. State By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.09.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI CRL RC No.1012 of 2018 R.Fayashkhan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State Rep by The Inspector of Police, K.G.Chavadi Police Station Coimbatore District (Crime No.133/2018) 2.Krishna Goushala, Thirumalayam Palayam, Coimbatore. ... Respondents Criminal Revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 12.07.2018 made in C.M.P.No.4716/2018 (on the file Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore) and direct the 2nd respondent to hand over the 28 cattle's to the petitioner/owner.

For Petitioner: Mr.C.Vijayakumar For R1 : M/s.S.Thankira Government Advocate (Crl. side)

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 12.07.2018 passed in C.M.P.No.4716/2018, wherein and whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, , Coimbatore dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C for interim custody of the 28 cattle (26 buffaloes and 2 bullock). 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of 28 cattle, which were purchased from various persons by paying valuable consideration. After purchasing the cattle, they were handed over to the lorry owner to be delivered to the market. During the transportation of the

cattle, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, catched the vehicle and lodged a special report to the respondent police, due to which, the respondent police registered the present complaint. 3.It is stated that the respondent-police registered a case under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelties to Animals Act, 1960 and on the same day, the respondent police seized the entire cattle and handed over them to the 2nd respondent Krishna Goushala, Coimbatore. The petitioner filed a petition before the lower Court under Setions 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is no sufficient space for the 2nd respondent to maintain the cattle and the 2nd respondent did not follow the procedures prescribed under the Act and the said cattle were kept in the open space and hence, the petitioner sought for return of the cattle. After the elaborate consideration, the lower Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the dismissal order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is owner of the cattle and the said cattle were transported to sell in the cattle market. However, based on the false complaint filed by the complainant, the Police have registered a case and seized the entire cattle and subsequently, handed over the same to the 2nd respondent. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent is not properly maintaining the cattle. Thus, he sought for allowing the revision by directing the respondents to handover the cattle to the petitioner being owner of them. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner is an habitual offender and already two FIRs are pending against him for transportation of the cattle to the flush trade market.

The learned counsel would further submit that the said bullocks and cattle were maintained by the 2nd respondent by collecting donations from the various persons. The claim made by the petitioner is not genuine. Thus, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the revision case.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) did not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/intervener that two cases are pending similar in nature against the petitioner.

7.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8.From a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the lower Court has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no proper explanation on the side of the petitioner as to whether the cattle were transported through seized vehicle from one place to another with proper care and protection as per the Rules prescribed by Transport of Animals Rules 1978. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any error in the order passed by the Courts below. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the Judgment in 2015(4) MLJ Page 38 (S.Muralidharan Vs. Nogaraj and another), wherein it has been held by this Court as follows:

" .... we find that the accused transported the cattle to burchery without following the rules and regulations. The cattle were being transported continuously from District to District without even providing fodder or water. The transportation is done in total violation of the legal provisions. The object of the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, is only to prevent animals from being put to cruelty. Further, stringent action should be taken as against those who violates the laws in future. The vehicles which are used for the commission of this kind of offence should be dealt with under the Motor Vehicles Act......; The above decision would squarely be applicable to the present facts of the case.

9.In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore in C.M.P.No.4716 of 2018, dated 12.07.2018, is hereby confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

kal To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore.

2. The Inspector of Police, K.G.Chavadi Police Station Coimbatore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.

CRL RC No.1012 of 2018 ak[co] srg 26/10/2018