High Court
Facts
903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgment.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1145 OF 2024 1.Abdul Majeed s/o Abdul NabiAge: 38 years, Occu. Business,R/o Yedapalle Jankampet,Nizamabad, Telangana2.Kureshi Hymad Ussain s/o Yakub Sab,Age 45 years, Occu. Business,R/o. Thirmanpally, Indalwai,Nizamabad, Telangaba … PETITIONERSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Umri Police Station,Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded2.Through TrusteeDevkrupa Gaushala & Govidnyan Kendra,At Pawna, Tq. Himayatnagar,Dist. Nanded … RESPONDENTS WITHCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1146 OF 2024Shaikh Ahmed Shaikh AliAge: 33 years, Occu. Business,R/o. Ram Nagar, Nirmal, Dist. Adilabad,Telangana State ...PETITIONER VERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Umri Police Station,Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded 1 of 19
Legal Reasoning
(( 13 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgment18.In Mohammad Razique Mohammad Sabir, Criminal WritPetition No.304 of 2022 , cited (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of thisCourt has observed in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, as under:-“10. Though vehicle is to be held as a security the aspect isabout handing over temporary custody of vehicle during thependency of the Trial. Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 2017 is specifichaving consequence of default that, if within three days fromthe order of the Magistrate, the owner fails to execute arequisite bond, animal shall stand forfeited to the Gaushala.Thus, there would be automatic forfeiture of animal on failureof owner. It is not made clear that whether the Magistrate hasmade any order under Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 2017 whilehanding over custody of animals to the Gaushala. It is informedthat the owner has not approached to the Magistrate for releaseof cattle. The question is how far the vehicle owner shall bedirected to pay cost of maintenance of animals, if there is noforfeiture. Certainly, his liability may not extend after forfeitureof animals to the Gaushala as contemplated under Rule 5(1) ofthe Rules of 2017. Therefore, till the mean period, the owner ofthe vehicle shall be held responsibility to pay the maintenancecharges.11.It is not disputed that the petitioners are owners ofrespective vehicles. Undisputedly, for considerable period, thevehicles are lying in the Police Station. In reported case ofSunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC283, the Supreme Court held that:-“In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use tokeep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a longperiod. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate ordersimmediately by taking appropriate bond and guaranteeas well as security for return of the said vehicles, ifrequired at any point of time.”Though the vehicle is seized for the offence under the specialstatute, no specific provision is brought to the notice aboutconfiscation of vehicle. In absence of such provision under theRules of 2017, the general provisions contained under ChapterXXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply. The Trial 13 of 19 (( 14 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-JudgmentCourt will take considerable time for disposal of case. Certainly,if the vehicle is kept lying at the Police Station, during passageof time it would become worthless. Therefore, though thevehicle can be held as security, the interim custody can be givento the petitioners on certain terms and conditions.12.In view of above, both impugned orders passed by thelearned Magistrate and the Revisional Court are quashed andset aside. Both vehicles are held as a security, however interimcustody of both the vehicles shall be handed over to therespective petitioners on their executing indemnity bond of Rs.15 lakhs each on the following conditions:-(i) Petitioners shall deposit the respective amount at therate of Rs. 200/- per cattle per day for the period of 10days, during which the Magistrate if not already passedorder, shall pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 5(1)of the Rules of 2017.(ii) The temporary release of vehicle is subject to thepetitioners’ tendering the photocopy of document ofownership of vehicle to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.(iii) The temporary custody is handed over on conditionthat the vehicle shall not be used in any crime.(iv) The petitioner shall provide photograph of vehiclefrom all sides to the Investigating Officer. The detailpahchanama of the vehicle shall be made by theInvestigating Officer and place it along with photographs.(v) The petitioners shall not hand over possession ofvehicle to third party, nor alienate or change the outerappearance of vehicle till conclusion of trial.(vi) The petitioners shall produce the vehicle in the Courtas and when required.”19.In Roshan Omkar Tarare, (Criminal Writ Petition No.02 of2022 of Nagpur Bench), the Division Bench held that, Sections 457 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable for release of thevehicle, which is seized in the offence under the provisions ofPrevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act and Rules framed thereunder 14 of 19 (( 15 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgmentand the custody of the vehicle can be granted on arrangement ofmaintenance of animal from the person from whose possession theanimals are seized in the crime. If the crime is relating to transportof animals and the vehicle is involved in the crime, then the vehicleowner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents in any other partiesinvolved, shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport,treatment and care the animals. Thus there is a specific provision andthe vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter and agents areduty bound to pay the maintenance of said cattle, which are seizedfrom their possession.20.In the case of Mohammad Rajik, cited (supra), thecoordinate Bench of this Court observed in paragraph No.6 hasobserved as under:-“6. Considering the above rival contention and perusal of theimpugned order of the learned JMFC and Judgment of thelearned Sessions Court, it is apparent that the question whetherthe animals which admittedly were purchased for the purposeof trade by the petitioner, were to be used for the purpose ofsale, slaughter or otherwise is a question which will have to bedetermined by the learned JMFC during the trial of theproceeding. It is admitted position that that animals have beengiven in the custody of the respondent No. 2 and therespondent No. 2 is taking care of them. The petitioner has notcomplied the direction of the learned JFMC, by which the costof maintenance of the animals have been directed to bedeposited. Rather on the contrary, a plea is now sought to beraised for reduction of the amount of maintenance from Rs. 15 of 19 (( 16 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgment200/- per day to Rs 20/- per day which is contradictory to whathas been fixed as the minimum cost of maintenance as pertheNotification dated 27.02.2019 issued by the MaharashtraAnimal Welfare Board. Under Rule 5(4) of Rules 2017, whichare presently in force, in view of the clarification of the Hon’bleApex Court date 11.08.2017 in WP (C) No. 422, 419, 499, 497of 2017, the vehicle has to stand as security for the purpose ofcost of maintenance which admittedly has not been paid ordeposited by the petitioner.”21.In Jiba Bikas Parisad, cited (supra), the vehicle which wasseized while transporting 88 cattle (45 Cows and 43 Bullocks), wasdirected to be released by the Sessions Court on condition offurnishing cash security of Rs.50,000/- and indemnity bond ofRs.5,00,000/- (Rupes Five Lakh). Under these circumstances, theOrissa High Court held that, the learned Revisional Court withoutconsidering Rule 5 of 2017 Rules and provisions of Prevention ofCruelty to the Animals Act, the registered S.P.C.A. is entitled formaintenance and care of the animals.22.The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that thecattle and vehicles of the Petitioners are seized. The learned J.M.F.C.passed the orders and denied custody of the vehicles. After theseizure of the cattle, the informant who is the Police Authority, havehanded over custody of the cattle to Respondent No.2 Gaushala.Therefore, considering Rule 5 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 16 of 19 (( 17 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgment(Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals), Rules 2017, thePetitioners would be entitled to pay maintenance charges, transport,treatment and care of animals from the date of seizure of animals tillgiving custody of the animals to the Gaushala. So also, the Petitionersare ready and willing to execute surety bond to that effect.23.As per sub-Rule(2) of Rule 5, if the Gaushala is having thecustody of the animals in that event the Gaushala would be entitledto receive animal maintenance charges from the date of custody tilldate of final disposal of the animal. As per Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 5, ifthe vehicle is involved for the offence relating to transport of animals,the vehicle owner is liable for the cost of transport, treatment andcare of animals. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstancesof the present case, after seizure of the cattle, custody of the cattlewere given to the Respondent No.2 on the date of seizure. In cases inhand, the Petitioners have not claimed custody of the animals but inboth the petition, the Petitioners have claimed custody of the vehicleson Supurtnama. Therefore,taking into consideration of provisions ofRule 5 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance ofCase Property Animals), Rules 2017 as well as the view taken in citedcase laws, it would be just and proper to release the vehicles bearing 17 of 19 (( 18 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-JudgmentTruck No. TS-16-UB-6896, Truck No.AP-07-TB-4911, and TruckNo.TS-08 UE-6840 in favour of the Petitioners on imposing strictterms and conditions. In view of above discussion, impugned orderdated 04.04.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, inCriminal Revision Nos. 6 of 2024 and 7 of 2024, as well as orderdated 23.02.2024, passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Umri, in O.M.C.A.No. 22 of 2024 and O.M.C.A. No.23 of 2024, are hereby quashed andset aside. Further, the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar in Criminal RevisionNo. 02 of 2024 as well as the order dated 06.02.2024, passed by thelearned J.M.F.C. Umri in O.M.C.A. No. 11 of 2024, are herebyquashed and set aside. 24.The Petitioners are entitled for interim custody of thevehicles No.AP-07 TB-4911, vehicle No.TS-16 UB-6896 and thevehicle No. TS-08 UE-6840, on execution of bond with solvent suretyof Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) each.25.The Petitioners shall furnish the photo-copies of the R.C.Book of the vehicles, ownership of the vehicles to the satisfaction ofthe learned J.M.F.C. 18 of 19
Arguments
(( 2 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgment2.Through TrusteeDevkrupa Gaushala & Govidnyan Kendra,At Pawna, Tq. Himayatnagar,Dist. Nanded … RESPONDENTS .…Mr. Shaikh Sohail Subhedar, Advocate for the Petitioners Ms Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. Shrimant Mundhe a/o Mr. Amol Chate, Advocates for RespondentNo.2 .…CORAM: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.DATE:06.02.2025ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finallywith the consent of both the sides.2.In both these Petitions, the common question arises i.e.whether the Petitioners who are owners of the seized vehicles for theoffences under the Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act, 1960and Rules are entitled for custody of vehicles on payment oftransport, treatment and animal care charges from the date of receiptof custody of the animals by the Animal Care take shelter (Gaushala)till final disposal of the animals?.3.In Writ Petition No. 1145 of 2024, the Petitioner No.1Abdul Majeed s/o Abdul Nabi, claimed to be the owner of vehicle 2 of 19 (( 3 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-JudgmentNo.AP-07 TB-4911. The petitioner No.2 Kureshi Hymad Ussain s/oYakub Sab, claimed to be the owner of vehicle bearing No.TS-16-UB6896. Both these vehicles appear to be seized on 01.02.2024 whiletransporting 39 cattle in the vehicles, mercilessly in cruel manner. Itis alleged that, the legs, heads and body of animals were tied byropes. As per the F.I.R., dated 01.02.2024 lodged by the Police HeadConstable Shri Raman Fakira Gedam it appears that, he seized 39cattle (39 Buffaloes) and both the vehicles, which were foundtransporting the cattle in violation of provisions of Prevention ofCruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 125 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988. He drawn the seizure panchanama of cattle and vehicles.Thereafter he handed over custody of cattle to Respondent No.2Gaushala (Animal Care take shelter ) for welfare.4.The Petitioner No.1 filed O.M.Cri.Appln. No.22 of 2024and the Petitioner No.2 filed O.M.Cri.Appln. No.23 of 2024 before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umri and prayed for releaseof their vehicles bearing Nos. AP-07 TB-4911 and TS-16 UB 6896 onSupurtnama. On 23.02.2024, the learned J.M.F.C. Umri, passed theorder in O.M.C.A. No.22 of 2024 and O.M.C.A. No.23 of 2024 anddeclined to grant custody of the vehicles because both the vehicles are 3 of 19 (( 4 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgmentused for transporting of cattle for slaughtering, ear-tag of animalsand identifications were not mentioned in the transport receipt, soalso, there is violation of Motor Vehicle Rules 125-D whiletransportation of animals.5.Being aggrieved by said order, both the Petitionersinvoked jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of CriminalProcedure by filing Criminal Revision Application No.6 of 2024 andCriminal Revision Application No.7 of 2024. On 04.04.2024, thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, passed the impugnedorder in Criminal Revision Application Nos.6 of 2024 and CriminalRevision Application No.7 of 2024 and dismissed both the Revisions.6.The learned counsel for the Petitioners canvassed that,the Petitioner No.1 is the owner of vehicle No. AP-07- TB-4911, Eichermotor goods carrier HMV. The Petitioner No.2 is the owner of VEcommercial vehicle goods carrier MMV bearing Registration No.TS-16UB 6896. Both the Petitioners are used to purchase and sell cattle inthe local market to derive the income. However, both the vehicleshave been seized on 01.02.2024 in connection Crime No.0052 of2024 for the offences registered under Sections 11(1) (d) (e) of thePrevention of Animals Act, 1960, Section 6 of the Maharashtra 4 of 19 (( 5 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-JudgmentPrevention of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1995 and Section 125(D),2(i) of the Central Motor Vehicle Act (Amended) 2016. The learnedcounsel for the Petitioners canvassed that, since the Petitioners are theowners of respective vehicles, they are entitled for custody of thevehicles on Supurtnama under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. However, thelearned Magistrate erroneously rejected both the Applications anddirected to pay maintenance charges of Rs.300/- per day per animalto the Respondent No.2 Devkrupa Gaushala & Govidnyan Kendra,Himayatnagar. So also, the learned Revisional Court failed toconsider the fact that, the petitioners voluntary and permanentrelinquished their right over the cattle in favour of Respondent No.2Gaushala, therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled to pay anymaintenance of the cattle till conclusion of the trial. So also, idlestanding of the vehicles in the police station premises would certainlydereave its value and may deteriorate their condition. Therefore,prayed for custody of the vehicles on any terms and condition whichmay be imposed by this Court. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitionercanvassed that, in Cri. W. P. No. 1146 of 2024, the Petitioner ShaikhAhmed Shaikh Ali is the owner of vehicle No.TS-08 UE-6840 and it is 5 of 19 (( 6 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgmentseized on 15.01.2024 while transporting 19 cattle (Buffelos) in thesaid vehicle mercilessly in cruel manner. As per the F.I.R. dated16.01.2024 lodged by the Police Constable Shri Madhav PrakashraoPawar seized 19 cattle (Buffaloes) and vehicle, which was foundwhile transporting the cattle in violation of the provisions of thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 125 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988. After the seizure panchanama, custody ofthe cattle given to Respondent No.2 Gaushala for welfare.8.The Petitioner filed O.M.Cri.Appln. No.11 of 2024 beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umri and prayed forrelease of vehicle No.TS-08 UE-6840 on Supurtnama. On 06.02.2024,the learned J.M.F.C., Umri, passed the order on O.M.C.A. No.11 of2024 and declined to grant custody of the vehicle.9.Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner invokedjurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure byfiling Criminal Revision No.02 of 2024. On 08.04.2024, the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, passed the impugned order inCriminal Revision No.02 of 2024 and dismissed the Revision. 10.The learned counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that, thePetitioner is the owner of vehicle No. TS-08 UE-6840 Eicher Pro 6 of 19 (( 7 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-JudgmentModel. The said vehicle has been seized on 15.01.2024 in connectionwith Crime No. 0030 of 2024 for offenses punishable under 11(1) (d)of the Prevention of Animals Act, 1960, section 6 of the MaharashtraPrevention of Animals (Amendment) Act 1995 and section 125(D)2(i) of the Central Motor Vehicle Act (Amended) 2016. The learnedcounsel canvassed that, the Petitioner is entitled for custody of thevehicle on Supurtnama under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. The standing ofthe vehicle idle in the Police Station premises would certainly lost itsvalue and may be deteriorate the condition. Therefore, the Petitionerprayed for custody of the vehicle on any terms and condition whichmay be imposed by this Court.11. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel forthe Petitioners relied on the following cases:-(i)Order dated 19.06.2021 passed by this Court in CriminalWrit Petition No.395 of 2021 (Afzal Khan Sayyed KhanQureshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra);(ii)Order dated 09.02.2023 passed by this Court in CriminalWrit Petition No.1513 of 2021 (Feroz Khan Babu Khan Vs.The State of Maharashtra and another;(iii)Order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Special Leave Appeal (Criminal) 7262 of 2023(Perichi Gounder Vs. Tamil Nadu State); 7 of 19 (( 8 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgment(iv) Order dated 01.10.2002 passed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and othersVs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638;(v) Judgment dated 05.04.2023 passed by this Court inCriminal Writ Petition No.1588 of 2022, Govansh RakshaSamiti Goshala, Majalgaon and another Vs. The State ofMaharashtra and others;(vi)Judgment dated 12.05.2023, passed by this Court in WritPetition No.1341 of 2022, Shri Guru Ganesh Shri GuruMishri Gaurakshan Charitable Trust Vs. The State ofMaharashtra and another, with bunch of Petitions.12.Per contra, the Respondent No.1 prosecution failed to filereply and has not given any explanation on the question as to why thevehicles in question cannot be released on Supurtnama under Section457 of Cr.P.C. Similarly, the Respondent No.2 Gaushala thoughappeared through its counsel, but failed to file reply. However, thelearned APP and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 orallyargued the matter for the considerable period.13.In respect of Cri.Writ Petition No. 1145 of 2024, thelearned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that, on01.02.2024, the informant handed over custody of the 39 cattle(Buffalos) to the Respondent no. 2 after drawing seizure panchanamaof vehicle and cattle, whereas, in Cri. Writ Petition No. 1146 of 2024, 8 of 19 (( 9 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgmentthe informant handed over the custody of 19 cattle to the RespondentNo.2 on 15.01.2024 after drawing seizure panchanama. It iscanvassed that, as per Rule 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Care and Maintenance of Case property Animals) Rules, 2017, thevehicle owners, owners of the cattle are bound to furnish bond andresponsible to pay maintenance charges of the cattle including cost oftransport, treatment and care of animals from the date on whichcustody of the cattle are received till date of final disposal of theanimal.14.In support of these submissions, the learned counsel forthe Respondents placed reliance on the following case laws.(i) Yas Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021 SCCOnLine All 608;(ii)Mohammad Rajik Vs. State of Maharashtra and another,2022 SCC OnLine Bom 10331;(iii)Jiba Bikas Parisad Vs. State of Odisha and another, 2021SCC OnLine Ori 1747;(iv)Altaf Babru Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another,2022 SCC OnLine Bom 10330;(v)Tahir A. Matin Sheikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCCOnLine Bom. 668; 9 of 19 (( 10 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgment(vi)Judgment dated 24.08.2022 passed by this Court atNagpur Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.304 of 2022(Mohammad Razique Mohammad Sabir Vs. State ofMaharashtra through Police Station Officer, Lahandur;(vii)The order dated 16.02.2024 passed by this Court atNagpur Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.203 of 2023(Mohammad Iqbal s/o Md. Sarwar Vs. The State ofMaharashtra and another);(viii)Judgment dated 10.02.2023, passed by this Court atNagpur Bench, in Criminal Writ Petition No.2 of 2002(Roshan Omkar Tarare Vs. State of Maharashtra andanother).15.In case-in-hand, the Petitioners prayed for custody ofseized vehicles on Supurtnama under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., duringpendency of trial in Crime No.0052 of 2024, in connection withtransporting 39 animals and in Crime No. 0030 of 2024 in respect oftransporting of 19 Animals mercilessly and in cruel manner. 16.Rule 4, 5 and 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals), Rules 2017,provides as under:-“4. Cost of care and keeping of animal pending litigation. - (1)The State Board shall within three months from the date ofcommencement of these rules and thereafter on the 1st day of 10 of 19 (( 11 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-JudgmentApril every year, specify the cost of transport, maintenance andtreatment per day for every species of animal that is commonlyseized in the State.(2) The magistrate shall use the rates specified by the StateBoard as the minimum specified rates for transport,maintenance and treatment of the seized animals under sub-section (4) of section 35 of the Act.(3) In case the animal under consideration is not on the ratesheet specified by the State Board, the magistrate shall fix thecost of transport, treatment and maintenance of the animalbased on the input provided by the jurisdictional veterinaryofficer.5. Execution of bond.- (1) The magistrate when handing overthe custody of animal to an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, AnimalWelfare Organisation or Gaushala shall determine an amountwhich is sufficient to cover all reasonable cost incurred andanticipated to be incurred for transport, maintenance andtreatment of the animal based on the input provided by thejurisdictional veterinary officer and shall direct the accused andthe owner to execute a bond of the determined value withsureties within three days and if the accused and owner do notexecute the bond, the animal shall be forfeited to infirmary,pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala.(2) The infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal WelfareOrganisation or Gaushala having the custody of the animal maydraw on from the bond on a fortnightly basis the actualreasonable cost incurred in caring for the animal from the dateit received custody till the date of final disposal of the animal.(3) The magistrate shall call for the accused and the owner toexecute additional bond with sureties once eighty per cent. ofthe initial bond amount has been exhausted as cost for caringfor the animal.(4) security. Where a vehicle has been involved in an offence,the magistrate shall direct that the vehicle be held as a security.(5) In case of offence relating to transport of animals, thevehicle owner, consignor, consignee, Dansporter, agents andany other parties involved shall be jointly and severally liablefor the cost of transport, treatment and care of animals. 11 of 19 (( 12 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgment(6) In cases where a body corporate owns the animal, the ChiefExecutive Officer, President or highest-ranking employee of thebody corporate, the body corporate and the accused shall bejointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatmentand care of the animal.(7) In cases where the Government owns the animal, the Headof the Department and the accused shall be jointly andseverally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care ofthe animal.(8) If the owner and the accused do not have the means tofurnish the bond, the magistrate shall direct the local authorityto undertake the costs involved and recover the same as arrearsof land revenue.8. Status of animal upon disposal of litigation. --(1) If theaccused is convicted, or pleads guilty, the magistrate shalldeprive him of the ownership of animal and forfeit the seizedanimal to the infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal WelfareOrganisation or Gaushala already having custody for properadoption or other disposition.(2) If the accused is found not guilty of all charges, the seizedanimal shall be returned to the accused or owner of the animaland the unused portion of any bond amount executed shall bereturned to the person who executed the bond.”17.As per sub-rule (5) of Rule 5, in case, offence pertainingto transport of animals, the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee,transporter, agents or any other parties involved, shall be jointly andseverally are liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care ofanimals from the date, it receives the custody till the disposal of theanimal. As per sub-rule(4) of Rule 5, where a vehicle is involved inan offence, the Magistrate shall direct that the vehicle be held assecurity. 12 of 19
Decision
(( 19 )) 903-*Cri-WP-1145,1146-2024-Judgment26.The Petitioners shall not transfer/alienate the vehicles orthey shall not create any third party interest over the vehicles duringpendency of the trial.27.The Petitioners shall furnish undertaking that they wouldfurnish the vehicles during course of trial, if directed by the learnedJ.M.F.C.28.The Petitioners shall deposit cattle maintenance chargesincluding transportation, treatment and care of animals with theRespondent No.2 at the rate of Rs.200/- per day per cattle, from thedate of its seizure till the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., priorto releasing the vehicles in their favour and shall furnish the receiptissued by Respondent No.2 before the learned J.M.F.C. 29.Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Both the WritPetitions are disposed of. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] SMS 19 of 19