PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the applicants seek to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 23-2-2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 10/2001 by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (Sarguja) confirming the order dated 15-1-2001 passed on M.J.C. Nos. 5/2001, 8/2001 and 7/2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj (Sarguja) rejecting the applications of the applicants submitted under Section 451, Cr.P.C.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition in nut-shell are that in connection with Crime No. 160/2000 in relation to offences punishable under Sections 11(1) (a), (h) and (n) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 6, 7 and 11 of M.P. Krishi Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 1959, 94 cattle including ox, cows, etc. were seized from the custody of Sahmud Khan (applicant No. 3). Similarly, from the custody of applicant No. 2 Mohd. Sultan and applicant No. 1 Premchand, 49 and 8 cattle were seized. The allegations of the prosecution were that the applicants were not bona fide agriculturist nor engaged in the cattle business but were in fact taking the cattle to Bihar to the slaughter-house. It is also alleged against the applicants that the applicants were treating the cattle with cruelty and were liable to be prosecuted. Each of the applicant submitted an application before the Trial Court under Section 451, Cr.P.C. As the said applications were rejected, the applicants preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No. 10/2001. As the said revision proved futile, the applicants have come to his Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the documents annexed with the present petition, which were also filed before the Trial Court, it would clearly appear that the applicants had purchased the catties either for raising those or for trading in the cattle business and the approach of the police, so also of the Courts below, in fact was contrary to the records. He also submits that the cattle are being looked after properly and in any case the Courts below were unjustified in rejecting the applications of the applicants. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the manner in which the cattle were treated rather cruelly treated and were being shifted from Madhya Pradesh to Bihar would clearly show that the applicants in fact are not the cattle grazers but in fact are dealing with the cattle so that they may be taken to the slaughter-house. He also submits that the challan has already been filed and as the trial would not take much time in its disposal, the application deserves to be rejected. I have heard the parties.

(3.) Undisputedly, the first information report was registered on a complaint made by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Wadrafnagar. The said Sarpanch stated that 151 cattle were being driven about 20-25 kms. everyday and they were not being fed properly. In the complaint, it was also stated by the said Sarpanch that the associates of the present applicants appeared to be residents of Bihar and as they were taking the cattle to Bihar, the police was required to intervene in the matter. On the said complaint of Sarpanch, the first information report was registered by the Station House Officer of Police Station, Basantpur. Learned counsel for the State though submitted that the cattle were being driven to Bihar but the case diary, barring the statements of some of the persons that the cattle were being driven to Bihar, does not contain anything that on what basis those persons could presume or infer that the cattle were being taken to Bihar. The applicants are shown to be residents of village Maheda, village Ramnagar and village Wadrafnagar, all within the jurisdiction of Police Station Basantpur. If that is so, the defence of the present applicants that the cattle belong to them and that they are raising the cattle either for their own use or for trading cannot be considered to be a false story. In any case, the applicants so long as they are not held guilty would be entitled to the custody of their cattle property. 151 cattle if are given in the custody of somebody, then he would be required to look after the cattle and would also be required to make necessary arrangements for fodder and all other things. Ultimately, the expenses will have to be born by the present applicants. The applicants who have yet not been held guilty cannot be saddled with the unnecessary expenditure which are likely to be incurred by the Supruddar. The Courts below without taking into consideration the practical problems which are likely to be faced by all concerned have rejected the applications. The said orders cannot be approved. The orders passed by the learned Courts below deserve to and are accordingly set-aside.