Bombay High Court
Govindyan Anusandhan Kendra ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 3 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 apl262.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.262/2017
Govindyan Anusandhan Kendra,
Gorakshan Deolapar, through
Pramod Ramsiromi Mishra,
Deolapar, Tq. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur. ....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Police Station
Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur.
2. Md. Qasim s/o Sheikh Basir,
aged about 29 years, Occ. Business,
r/o Bhaji Mandi, Kamptee,
Dist. Nagpur. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. R. Damle, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Laique Hussain, Advocate for non applicant no.1.
Ms T. Udeshi, A.P.P. for non applicant no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 03.08.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. Police Station, Ramtek has registered an offence vide
Crime No. 44/2017 under the relevant provisions of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The police authorities seized
2 apl262.17.odt
13 she buffaloes and 4 he buffaloes. After that the custody of
those live stock was handed over to the present applicant. Two
separate applications were moved before the learned Magistrate
under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One was
moved by the present applicant and another was moved by the
non applicant no.2 for interim custody. The learned Magistrate in
Misc. Criminal Application No.21/2017 which was filed by the
present applicant granted custody in its favour thereby rejecting
the application of the present non applicant.
That resulted into the filing of Criminal Revision No.
45/2017. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur after
considering the facts brought on record, allowed the revision and
set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and directed
that the present non applicant no.2 is entitled for custody on he
executing bond of Rs.4,50,000/- before the learned Magistrate
with a condition that he will take appropriate care, protection and
welfare of animals after taking them in the custody. The non
applicant no.2 was also directed to pay Rs.200/- per day towards
the maintenance to the present applicant from the day of seizure
till the date of taking the custody.
3 apl262.17.odt
Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant in whose favour
initially the custody was granted is before this Court.
3. I have heard Mr. S. K. Damle, learned counsel for the
applicant, Ms Trupti Udeshi, learned A.P.P. for non applicant no.1-
State and Mr. Laique Hussain, learned counsel for non applicant
no.2.
4. It is not in dispute that the non applicant no.2 is the
owner of the lives stock. It is also not in dispute that non applicant
no.2 holds license for holding the live stock. It is also not in
dispute that at no point of time, the present non applicant no.2
was convicted under the relevant provisions of the Act.
5. The law in this regard is no more res integra. The
learned Sessions Judge has given full consideration to the law as it
could be seen from the judgment itself. The learned Judge of the
Corut below, in my view has rightly relied on the decision cited by
the non applicant no.2.
Thus, it is crystal clear that non applicant no.2 being
owner of the live stock is entitled to have the custody.
4 apl262.17.odt
6. Another question that is posed before this Court is that
whether the applicant is entitled to receive Rs.400/- per day per
animal by way of maintenance charges. The learned Judge has
granted Rs.200/-.
The live stock consists of 13 milch buffaloes. Thus, the
applicant has already derived the income by selling milk and other
dairy products.
7. In that view of the matter, to meet the ends of justice, I
direct that the applicant shall be entitled to receive Rs.100/- per
day per animal from the non applicant no.2 instead of Rs.200/-
per day towards the maintenance charges. The other conditions in
the order impugned order are kept as it is.
With these observations, the revision is allowed. Rule
is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
kahale
