The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records for the Docket Order in Crl.M.P.No.545 of 2025 in Crime M. 16'l of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rama Reddy District, dated 30-04- 2025 al Rajendranagar and Quash the same against the Petitioner. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Sectbn 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated ifl the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim custody of Vehicle bearing No. KA 55 A 0938 to Petitioner seized in Crime No. 161 of 2025 registered at Police Station, Shamshabad pending disposal of Criminal Petition. This Petition com'tng on for hearing, upon perusing the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R GOPI MOHAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER t I i r I { I i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7415 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shon: 'the BNSS') challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.545 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

2. I have heard Mr. R.Gopi Mohan, learned corlnsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representi ng the respondent-State.

3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration number KA55A0938. A criminal case was initiated under Se(ltion 11 read with Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Anim,als Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PCA Acf ) on the allegation that the petitioner's vehicle was used for the unlawful transportation of cattle. Consequently, the police seized the said vehicle. The petitioner subsequently filed an application before the trial court under Section 503 of the BNSS seeking interim custody of the 2 NTR-J cetP_7415 m25 vehicle. Upon consideration of the material on record, the trial court alloued the applir narure o*he conditionsT":"::'::'omrlv present petition. Assrieved bv rhe tmposed' the petitioner has filed the 4. learned counsel for ttre petitioner contends that the condition imposed by the triar court-requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,2O0l- bwards transportation costs and Rs.2O0l_ per catue per day from the date of seizure untir the date of the order, for a total of 36 catfle is unduly burdensome and has caused significant financial distress. lt is further subr submitted that the caftle have already been so' ; ^l ^ .":"'"r ' and as such' holding the petitioner liable for ongoing ,"int"nt an@ @sts is irnproper. Accordingly, counsel prays for the setting aside of the conditio '"'"t,nn to dairy maintenance charges imposed by thetriar 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional public prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that under the prevention Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance Animars) Rures, 2016 (the pcA Rures,), t" o*] is statutorily obligated to bear the expenses incurred for the anima,s during rhe,.,.::il;.::il:i:, " the seized vo- rt rs argued that the !--..- ner of the vehicle case property transportation, "orJ rnedical < I 3 NTR.J cRrP_74 r 5-2025 amount fixed at Rs.200/- per animal per day is rr:asonable and consistent with statutory mandates. Therefore, the prosecution I prays for the dismissal of the petition. I have perused the materials on record.

6. 7. Rule 4 of the PCA Rules specifies that the daily costs for transport, maintenance, and treatment of commonly seized animal species. Magistrates must adopt these rates as the minimum standards for cost determination under section 35(4) of the Act. For animal species not listed, the magistrate will determine costs based on the jurisdictional veterinary officer's 1 input.

8. Upon careful consideration of the statutory provisions, it is evident that the direction issued by the learned Magistrate requiring the deposit of funds and specifying the amount to be allocated for the daily maintenance and medical care of the cattle is in strict conformity with the stipulations set forth in the relevant rules. The Magistrate's determination of a daily maintenance and medication cost of Rs.200/- per cattle is further found to be reasonable, particularly in the absence of any substantive evidence or r,raterial to suggest that such an amount is excessive or unduly burdensome. 4 NTR,J cRrP_7{rs 2025

9. ln light of the prevailing circumstances and the necessity of ensuring the weHare and proper upkeep of the catfle throughout the pendency of the proceedings, this Court is of ttre considered view that the prescribed rate of Rs.200/_ per catfle per day is not unreasonable. No valid or {enable grounds have been presented that would warrant interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the order of the learned Magistrate is upheld. 10. Resultanfly, in the absence of merit, this petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismrssed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. \ sd/.Smt. A. PRATHTMA D PUTY REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY,, ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Raiendranagar' Cyberabad' The Station House Of{icer' Shamshabad Police Stat'rcn' one CC to SRl. R GOPI MOHAN Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Sri- Publ'rc Prosecutor' High Court fror the State of Telangana

5. Two CD Copies (+- GE/GR HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 ..\ ORDER 29 nlJ6 2H GRLP.No.7415 of 2025 .l t 4,,. p,i ;- // -.\'.;/ *.,i' ,4, THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED (t 9o g ))