Akram and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

T.P. Garg, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 20.3.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj in Case Crime No. 179 of 1997 pertaining to Police Station Shyam Deurva, District Maharajganj, u/s 3/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 26 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, whereby the application of the revisionists for giving custody of the bullocks seized by the police has been rejected. In their application for release of the bullocks moved by the revisionists before the learned C.J.M., it has been contended that they have purchased the cattle on different dates from the Cattle Fair, Jai Rani Bazar, Nasirganj, District Bahraich vide various receipts, photocopies of which have been placed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed along with the petition and as such, they were the owners of the aforesaid bullocks. It is further the case of the revisionists that after purchasing the bullocks from the aforesaid cattle fair, they were being transported to Mathauli Bazar, Padrauna in the trucks hired from M/s. Sultan Transport Company, Bahraich vide bilties, Annexure 4 to the affidavit. But the Police stopped the trucks on 11.3.97 at about 9 p.m. and demanded Rs. 10,000 and since they could not fulfill the alleged demand of illegal gratification made by the police, their bullocks were taken into custody and the case was registered against them vide seizure memo, Annexure 5 to the affidavit. They moved an application for release of the cattle, which is Annexure 6 to the affidavit on which the learned C.J.M. passed the impugned order, against which the present revision has been filled.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. As agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

Learned Counsel for the applicants has contended that in case the bullocks are not given in the custody of the applicants, they would suffer irreparable loss as some of the bullocks may die in the custody of the police for want of proper care and attention. It has also been argued that the applicants are the bona fide purchasers for consideration as is evident from various receipts issued by the appropriate authority, referred to above and they were being transported through the trucks hired from the transport Company and were not being taken in any clandestine manner. Reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel for the revisionists on Vidhyachal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.. 1994 JIC 291.

At this stage, it cannot be said that bullocks were being transported for the purpose of slaughter. The applicants have claimed ownership of the bullocks and have also tendered receipts in token of their having purchased the same and to establish their entitlement to get interim custody of the bullocks, which are at present stated to be in the custody of the police. Needless to say that in the custody of police, the cattle cannot have that care, attention and feeding, which they may receive from their owners. Admittedly, there is no other claimant of the aforesaid bullocks. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and welfare of the livestock, it is hereby directed that the learned Magistrate would give bullocks in the interim custody of the applicants provided they furnish adequate security other than in cash or bank guarantee and deposit the amount of expenses incurred so far by the police on their maintenance. This order is subject to applicants'' establishing their prima facie ownership and entitlement before the learned Magistrate as well.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.