Shersing Badansing Sable vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2158 Bom

                                               1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



Criminal Writ Petition No.  199 of 2017



Petitioner              :          Shersing Badansing Sable, aged about 35

                                   years, Agriculturist/Milk Vendor,

                                   resident of Longhat, Tahsil Motala, District 

                                   Buldhana

                                   versus

Respondents             :          1)  State of Maharashtra, through PSO,

PS Borakhedi, Tahsil Motala, District

Buldhana

2) Shri Gorakshan Sansthan, Buldhana

Road, Malkapur, through Secretary

Suryaprakash Damodarrao Rawat, resident

of Malkapur, District Buldhana

Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for petitioner

Shri Neeraj Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1

Shri A. J. Thakkar, Advocate for respondent no. 2

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 3rd May 2017

Oral Judgment

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is

willing to pay the maintenance charges at the rate and as directed by the

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Motala under protest, reserving right to

challenge the order. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the

petitioner should pay maintenance charges for further period. However, this

submission cannot be accepted for the reason that in the order dated 17.2.2017,

the maintenance charges have been allowed from the date of admission of cattle

in Gorakshan Sansthan till 31.1.2017 and that order, passed after sixteen days

of 31.1.2017, has not been challenged by respondent no. 2. If respondent no. 2

has any dues to recover, it is at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy.

But, if the petitioner is willing to obey the direction of the learned Magistrate to

pay the maintenance charges, respondent no. 2 should also obey the same

order which directs respondent no. 2 to release the custody of cattle of

petitioner on payment of maintenance charges as directed in the order, which

are Rs. 20/- per day per animal from the date of admission i.e. 20.9.2016 till

31st January 2017.

3. In view of above, this petition deserves to be allowed and it is

allowed accordingly. Respondent no. 2 is directed to release the custody of

cattle to the petitioner as directed by learned Magistrate subject to payment of

maintenance charges @ Rs. 20/- per day per animal from 20.9.2016 till

31.1.2017. Such payment, if made, shall be subject to the right of the petitioner

to challenge the order of the learned Magistrate before the appropriate Forum

and keeping all rights open.

Rule made absolute in the above terms.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi