Shri. Gorakshan Sansthan ... vs Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Kasim Kureshi ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3065 Bom

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/-





 Judgment

                                                             revn140.16 24 



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/-

Judgment

revn140.16 24

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/-

Judgment

revn140.16 24

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/-

Judgment

revn140.16 24

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 !!

...../-