Rahman vs State of U.P.

T.P. Garg, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 24.2.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Case No. 42 of 1997 pertaining to P. S. Khalilabad, District Basti, u/s 3/5/8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughters Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act whereby the application of the revisionist/Petitioner for giving custody of 14 bullocks has been rejected.

In his application for release of the bullocks, moved by the Petitioner before the learned Magistrate, it has been contended that the aforesaid bullocks were purchased from the cattle merchants from different cattle markets for the purposes of selling them in other markets and for which purpose, he was transporting them to Bazar Magugawa, but the police intercepted them on the way and asked the Petitioner to grease their palm and since the Petitioner could not do so, he was involved in the present case. The Petitioner has also filed receipts, photocopies of which are filed as Annexure ''I'' showing the purchase of the bullocks. He has also filed a transport challan of Honest Co-operative Transport Company as Annexure ''II'' showing that the aforesaid bullocks were being transported in truck No. UP-51/4655 in support of his contention. Reliance has also been placed on the copy of the recovery memo whereby the aforesaid bullocks were seized by the police and are presently in their custody.

Learned Counsel for the parties agreed that this revision/ petition may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in case the bullocks are not given in custody of the Petitioner, he would suffer irreparable loss and some of the bullocks may die in the custody of the police for want of proper care and attention. It has been argued that the Petitioner is the bona fide purchaser for consideration, as is evident from various receipts issued by the appropriate authority of the cattle fair, as contained in Annexure ''I''. Further that the bullocks were being transported through truck hired from a regular Transport Company and were not being taken in any clandestine manner. Earlier also, this Court has taken the view that in such a case the bullocks be returned to the custody of their original owner during pendency of the case.

At this stage, it cannot be said that the bullocks were being transported for the purpose of slaughter. The Petitioner has claimed ownership of the bullocks and has also tendered receipts in token of his having purchased the same and to establish his entitlement to get interim custody of the bullocks which are at present in the custody of the police. Needless to say that in the custody of the police, the cattle cannot have that much care, attention and feeding which they may receive from their owner. 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., I direct the learned Magistrate to give the bullocks in the interim custody of the Petitioner provided he furnishes adequate security other than in cash or bank guarantee and deposit the reasonable amount of expenses so for incurred by the Police/Manager of the cattle pond. This order is subject of the Petitioner''s establishing his prima facie ownership and entitlement before the learned Magistrate.

In view of the above discussion, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.