Lakadiya Panjarapole Thro Joga ... vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Lakadiya Panjarapole Thro Joga ... vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/SCR.A/12177/2024                                   ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                              R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF
                                       MUDDAMAL) NO. 12177 of 2024

                      ============================================
                            LAKADIYA PANJARAPOLE THRO JOGA BIJALBHAI RABARI
                                                   Versus
                                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ============================================
                      Appearance:
                      NISARG S SHAH(8886) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR A N PATHAN(11756) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
                      MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ============================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                        Date : 22/07/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

(1) By way of present petition the petitioner has sought following reliefs :

"B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 12/09/2024 passed by the Ld. Sessions Court, Bhachau-Kachchh; in Cri. Revision Application No.14/2024, produced at Annexure B;

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside both the identical orders dated 18/07/2024 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhachau, connection with FIR bearing No.11993001240193/2024 lodged with Kachchh West Police Station, Samkhichari, Kachchh produced at Annexure C;

D. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of judgment dated 12/09/2024 passed by the Ld. Sessions Court, Bhachau- Kachchh; in Cri. Revision Application No.14/2024;

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12177/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined produced at Annexure A; as well as implementation and execution of both the identical orders dated 18/07/2024 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhachau, connection with FIR bearing No.11993001240193/2024 lodged with Kachchh West Police Station, Samkhichari, Kachchh produced at Annexure C."

(2) Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties. (3) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an Animal Welfare Organization and is approaching this Hon'ble Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for protecting the fundamental right to life bestowed upon the animals. The respondent no.2 and 3 are private respondents who are the claimants of the animals seized in connection with the FIR No.11993001240193/2024 lodged with Kachchh West Police Station, Samkhiyari, Kachchh. The respondent no.2 has claimed 106 animals out of 177 seized animals; and the respondent no.3 has claimed 71 animals out of the 177 seized animals. Since the orders passed by the learned Magistrate were identical, the same were challenged by way of a common Revision Application before the Hon'ble Sessions Court and the same has been finally adjudicated on 12.09.2024, upholding the view taken by the learned Magistrate in its orders dated 18.07.2024.

(4) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has not considered the provisions of Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017. Though during the pending litigation the custody of animals was handed over to the respondent no.2 without considering the statutory provision not awarding the cost of maintenance of said animals as prescribed by Animal Welfare Board and learned Magistrate has Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 22:50:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12177/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined straightaway without discussing anything awarded Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance. Hence, on the said ground the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.07.2024 and said order came to be confirmed by the Revisional Court without assigning any reason and ordered to release the goats and sheep in favour of the respondent no.2 herein.

(5) The respondent has raised objection on the ground that both the Courts have not committed any error and the orders are having concrete finding and the custody of animals voluntarily received by the petitioner and it was temporary custody as the petitioner having no legal right to change as the said fact is not in dispute. The inquiry was conducted and concluded that present respondents are owner and they are entitled for the custody of live stocks and both the orders are passed which are legal and appropriate. The petitioner having no right to interfere with the custody of animals on the ground that hypothetical concerns. Further so far monetary relief is concerned the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as the petitioner himself appeared before the Revisional Court and filed an undertaking before the learned Sessions Judge that they will bear the cost of any damages to the said live stocks. Hence, they are not entitled for any maintenance. Nonetheless during the custody of the animals with the petitioner 47 goats and sheep were died and only 130 goats and sheep are alive.

(6) Going through the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, it appears that if ownership is not proved on the part of the respondent no.2 in that event he has to compensate and deposit such amount and further ordered to pay Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance to the petitioner. The respondents have produced the proof of ownership of the said Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 22:50:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12177/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined animals. Straightway without discussing further Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards the maintenance in favour of the petitioner. At the same time respondents have raised grievance that in the revision application came to be prolonged by filing the undertaking and pursis and declared that they will bear the cost of damage of the said live stocks. Nowhere reference of the said order reveals from the record of the trial Court. Even otherwise nothing is revealed as to on what basis Rs.3,000/- came to be awarded. Today, upon inquiring learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as per the notification of Animal Welfare Board approximately Rs.14,00,000/- is required to be recovered from the respondents towards maintenance. Refuting the said submission the learned Advocate for the respondents has opposed that as they have their own volition filed the litigation and declared before the revisional Court they will not cost any charge of maintenance even on failure. The petitioner failed to prove ownership of the said animals which is not in dispute the same belongs to the respondents and even total cost of live stock is less than alleged amount.

(7) Considering the aforesaid facts as learned trial Court has not assigned any reasons while awarding Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance without assigning reasons on merits cost is awarded hence nothing is transpired from the order as to whether undertaking filed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court was taken into consideration or token cost is awarded and order has been passed or otherwise quantum of maintenance is fixed. In view of above, it is expedient to remit back the matter to decide or clarify only the part of award of Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance after giving opportunity to both the parties.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/12177/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined (8) In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhachau-Kachchh awarding maintenance cost of Rs.3,000/- is quashed and set aside and matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court to decide the quantum of maintenance afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties. (9) With the aforesaid direction the present petition stands disposed of.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 22:50:34 IST 2025