Delhi High Court
Pappu Ram And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 6 August, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 10th JULY, 2015
DECIDED ON : 6th AUGUST, 2015
+ CRL.REV.P. 67/2015
PAPPU RAM & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Yogesh Kumar, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP.
Mr.S.D.Windlesh, Advocate for
R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of order dated
03.11.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge whereby order dated
08.08.2014 of learned CMM was modified to the extent that there would
be no waiver to pay maintenance charges. The revision petition is
contested by the respondents.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. By an order dated 08.08.2014 the learned CMM
allowed the applications of the petitioners therein to release the oxen on
superdari. Para No.17 of the said order records that maintenance costs
after 14.03.2014 till 08.08.2014 would not be payable by the owners of 31
oxen. The said order was challenged by respondent No.2 in
Crl.A.No.135/14. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge while upholding
order dated 08.08.2014 regarding release of oxen on superdari, modified
para No.17 and directed that maintenance costs shall be payable by the
owners till the date of release of the oxen to them. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied, the instant revision petition has been preferred by some of the
owners / petitioners.
3. It is a matter of record that the oxen seized were kept in Sri
Krishna Gaushala. Vide order dated 14.03.2014, they were ordered to be
released on superdari to the owners. Petitioners' case is that they were
prevented from taking custody of the oxen. On 18.03.2014 when they
went to Gosadan to take custody of some animals, their vehicle was put on
fire for which FIR No.252/14 was lodged. The complainant filed revision
petition challenging order dated 14.03.2014 and its operation was stayed
by learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.03.2014. The order
was set aside on 24.05.2014. The owners were directed to appear before
the learned Trial Court to move the application afresh. Again, order dated
08.08.2014 was passed for release of the animals which was challenged in
revision. Operation of the order dated 08.08.2014 too was stayed by the
revisional Court. It was finally disposed of on 03.11.2014. Apparently,
during this period certain number of oxen which could not be released
remained in the Gaushala and were maintained by it. Needless to say that
petitioners cannot deny their liability to pay maintenance charges during
the period the oxen remained in the custody of Gaushala. Record reveals
that 'owners' could not get the animals released on superdari due to stay
of operation of the said orders. For that, Gaushala can't be blamed to be
deprived of its reasonable maintenance charges. There are no allegations
if any official of Gaushala was responsible for illegal retention or
detention of the animals. No sound reasons exist in the order dated
08.08.2014 for waiver of maintenance charges. The learned Addl.
Sessions Judge was justified to order payment of maintenance charges
incurred by Gaushala for the maintenance and treatment of the animals in
compliance of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960.
4. Impugned order dated 03.11.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions
Judge is based upon fair appraisal of the facts and circumstances and
warrants no intervention.
5. The revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
6. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 06, 2015 / tr
