Shri. Gorakshan Sansthan ... vs Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Kasim Kureshi ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 3065 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 June, 2017

Bombay High Court
Shri. Gorakshan Sansthan ... vs Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Kasim Kureshi ... on 12 June, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment

                                                                 revn140.16 24 

                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO.140 OF 2016

Shri Gorakshan Sansthan
Pandharkawada, (Reg.No.E-16)
Though its Secretary Shri Girdharilal s/o
Gokulchand Zajeriya, Aged about 63
Years, Occupation Business, R/o
Pandharkawada, Tahsil Kelapur, 
District Yavatmal.                                         ..... Applicant.

                                ::   VERSUS   ::

1. Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Kasim Kureshi
Aged about 42 years, Occupation Business,
R/o Kamthi, Tahsil and 
District Nagpur.

2. State of Maharashtra, through
P.S.O. Pandharkawada, Tahsil
Kelapur, District Nagpur.                      ..... Non-applicant.

==============================================================
          Shri N.L. Jaiswal, , Counsel for the Applicant.
          Shri M.P. Kariya, Counsel for Non-applicant No.1.
          Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, Addl.P.P. for Non-applicant No.2/State.
==============================================================


                              CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
                              DATE     : JUNE 12, 2017.



                                                                         .....2/-




 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:06:21 :::
 Judgment

                                                             revn140.16 24 

                                   2

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri N.L. Jaiswal for the applicant, learned counsel Shri M.P. Kariya for non- applicant No.1, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh for non-applicant No.2/State.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

3. Two applications were filed before learned Magistrate for custody of live-stocks. The application filed on behalf of the present applicant was registered as Other Misc. Criminal Case No.53 of 2016, whereas application filed on behalf of non-applicant No.1 was registered as Other Misc. Criminal Case No.54 of 2016 before learned Magistrate at Kelapur. The police officer seized about 21 bullocks on 29.5.2016 from a truck .....3/-

::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:06:21 ::: Judgment revn140.16 24 3 bearing No.MH-40/Y-8734. The said truck was found since it dashed to a stationary tree. After seizure of the said truck, it was noticed by the police officer that three Bullocks expired due to said accident.

4. Before learned Magistrate, non-applicant No.1 filed necessary documents to show that he is the rightful owner of those live-stocks. Learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, rejected the application filed on behalf of non-applicant No.1 and application filed by applicant Shri Gorakshan Sansthan was allowed. Therefore, two revisions were preferred before the Revisional Court, one challenging grant of application filed on behalf of the present applicant and another rejecting the application filed on behalf of present non-applicant No.1.

5. The Revisional Court, vide impugned .....4/-

::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:06:21 ::: Judgment revn140.16 24 4 judgment, allowed both the revisions and set aside the order granting interim custody of Bullocks in favour of the applicant.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that there is no iota of any suspicion of ownership of the live-stocks. The said live-stocks belong to non-applicant No.1. There is nothing on record to show that said were transported for their slaughter. The issue, in respect of such cases, is not re integra. On various occasions, this Court has ruled that once the ownership is proved, then in that event custody should be handed over to the rightful owner. Since there is nothing on record to dispute the ownership of non- applicant No.1, in respect of the said live-stocks and the Revisional Court has noticed the said aspect correctly, I see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order .....5/-

::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:06:21 ::: Judgment revn140.16 24 5 passed by the Revisional Court. Hence, the criminal revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Needless to mention that the applicant will be at liberty to take an appropriate proceeding against non-applicant No.1 to recover the expenses which it has incurred when said live-stocks were in his custody.

JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-

::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:06:21 :::