PRADESH) v. (BY SHRI K.V.S SUNIL RAO - PANEL RAO)

(BY SHRI K.V.S SUNIL RAO - PANEL RAO) .....RESPONDENTS This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER This 482 petition has been filed seeking quashment of impugned order dated 01/12/2023 in Criminal Revision No.46/2023 passed by 1st Additional Session Judge, Begumganj District Raisen (M.P.). 2 . It is contended by the counsel that on account of registration of Criminal Case under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the police seized 6 buffaloes (calves) from the possession of Aayid @ Aahid. The present applicant while claiming himself to be owner of 6 buffaloes (calves) which were seized by the police, moved an application under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 2/2/2024 4:43:39 PM 2 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of their livestock on supurdiginama. The application moved by the applicant was turned down by the trial Court vide order dated 20/11/2023 (Annexure A/2). Assailing the said order, a revision was preferred which was dismissed vide order dated 01/12/2023 (Annexure A/3). 3 . It is contended by the counsel that the applicant along with an application filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. submitted receipts to demonstrate that the livestock were purchased by the present applicant from Gram Panchayat Kaseli District Sagar. It is also contended by the counsel that the receipts as regards purchase of Buffaloes (calves) were produced before the trial Court and the trial Court declined to entertain the application. It is contended by the counsel that the revisional Court has also dismissed the revision only on the basis of surmises. The revisional Court has expressed doubt as regards receipts pertaining to purchase of livestock. The revisional Court though in paragraph 10 of the order concluded that to seize the livestock, provisions of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 1959, are applicable but as the reason for transportation was not explained, has declined to entertain the application. Learned counsel contends that the impugned orders be set aside inasmuch as, except the present applicant, on one has claimed the owner ship of the Buffaloes (calves). The applicant produced the documents showing that he purchased the Buffaloes (calves). It is thus contended by the counsel that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Nabbu Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2005) 3 MPLJ 152, the custody of the Buffaloes (calves) be handed over to the applicant. 4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and while taking this Court to the order of revisional Court submits Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 2/2/2024 4:43:39 PM 3 that the revisional Court has expressed cogent reasons while passing the order. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner could not establish before the Court that the Buffaloes (calves) were not purchased for the purposes of slaughtering, therefore, as the doubt was expressed by the revisional Court in paragraph 18 of the order, no interference is warranted.

5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. In the present case, the applicant moved an application seeking release of buffaloes (calves) on Supurdiginama on the ground that he has purchased the buffaloes (calves) from Gram Panchayat Kesli District Sagar and in order to demonstrate the said fact, four receipts of dated 02/11/2023 and a receipt dated 09/11/2023 were produced. As per the said receipts which have been produced on record, the Buffaloes (calves) were purchased by the present applicant. The said receipts were not disputed by any one nor any one claimed custody of the buffaloes (calves). It is also evident that after seizure of the buffaloes (calves), they have been kept in Gaushala and in absence of any other claiming their right as regards owner-ship of the buffaloes (calves), in the considered view of this Court the application filed by the present applicant for supurdiginama ought to have been allowed.

8. Even the Apex Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. as regards disposal of the property on Supurdiginama in the pending trial. Thus taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Nabbu (Supra), this Court deem it proper to allow the petition. 9 . Accordingly, the order dated 01/12/2023 stands set aside and this Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 2/2/2024 4:43:39 PM petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed with the following 4 directions: a. That the seized buffaloes (calves) would be given to the applicant on his furnishing a supratnama to the satisfaction of the trial Court. b . The value of the buffaloes (calves) shall be ascertained by the trial Court and according to the valuation the applicant would be required to furnish the solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court and this surety would be given by a local resident of the concerned area. c. The applicant shall be bound to submit monthly report relating to all buffaloes (calves) before the trial Court. d. During pendency of the trial the applicant would not be entitled to transfer the buffaloes (calves) in any manner.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed. Astha (MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 2/2/2024 4:43:39 PM