RADHANPUR KHODA DHOR PANJRAPOLE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2013-4-170
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 17,2013

Radhanpur Khoda Dhor Panjrapole Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF U.P VERSUS MUSTAKEEM AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER PINJRAPOLE DEUDAR VS. CHAKRAM MORAJI NAT [REFERRED TO]
SAMANDKHAN MEERAKHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THESE Criminal Revision Applications, though arise from different orders in different Criminal Revision Applications preferred by respondent No. 2 before the District and Sessions Court, Patan, had taken up for hearing together since few similar questions have been involved in the matters.
1.1 The issues involved in the present group of matters are with regard to giving custody of livestock either to the owners of the livestock or to the Panjrapole (the petitioner in the present revision applications), if it is found that the owners have committed breach of provisions or Rules of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') as well as the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules').

(2.)IT appears from the record of the case that in each of the case when an animal activists found that in four motor trucks the livestock namely sheep and goats were being transported from one place to another in contravention to provisions of the said Act as well as the said Rules, he lodged FIR with nearest police stations. In the present group of matters, First Information Reports are lodged either in Harij Police Station or with Santalpur Police Station under the jurisdiction of Patan District. It was alleged in the FIR that in each of the truck, more than 150 sheep were being transported from one place to another which are contrary to Rule 75 of the said Rules and therefore, they have committed offence under Section 11(1)(d) and 11(1)(h) of the Animals Act. As provided under the said Act, the animals were sent to the petitionerPanjrapole immediately by the investigating agency.
Having come to know about seizure of the livestock, the different owners filed applications under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the application in each case submitted by the owners of the livestock and directed that the livestock shall be kept with Panjrapole and certain conditions were imposed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.

(3.)BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in each of the case, owners of the livestock preferred Criminal Revision Applications under Section 397 of the Code before the learned Sessions Judge and requested to quash and set aside the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and a prayer was made to hand over the custody of the livestock to them since they were the owners of the livestock. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan by different orders allowed each of the Criminal Revision Applications and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and directed the petitioner Panjrapole to hand over the custody of the livestock to the owners on certain conditions which are imposed in each of the case.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.