JALIL ANSARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid petitions filed by the respective petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") are being disposed of by this common order as common question of law arises for consideration. The respective petitioner, in all the above petitions, are alleged to have committed offence under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2004"). In addition to allegation of commission of offence under the Act of 2004, the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 433 of 2011, is also alleged to have committed offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1960") and under Section 47 ABC, 48, 49 ABC, 50, 59, 53,54(1) (2) (3) of Transportation of Cattle Act as also under Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 270 of 2011 are alleged to have committed offence under Section 11 of the Act of 1960. The petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 391 of 2011, are also alleged to have committed offence under Section 11 of the Act of 1960.

(2.) The petitioners in each of the aforesaid petitions filed an application for grant of interim custody of the cattle, alleged to have been seized in connection with allegation of commission of offence as stated above. In all the aforesaid petitions, except Cr.M.P. No. 391 of 2011, application for grant of interim custody was rejected by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, whereupon revision was filed and revision has also been dismissed. In Cr.M.P. No. 391 of 2011, the application filed by the petitioners in their respective cases for grant of interim custody was allowed by the Magistrate, against which, the State preferred revision. The revision filed by the State, has been allowed and the order of grant of interim custody in favour of the petitioners has been set aside, against which, petitioners have filed the instant petition.

(3.) In all the cases, application for grant of interim custody of cattle filed by the petitioners, who are facing prosecution for commission of offence under the Act of 2004 and in some cases under other enactments also, has been rejected on a common ground that in view of the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act of 2004, interim custody of the cattle could not be given to the applicants, who are facing prosecution, during the pendency of the trial for alleged commission of offence under the Act of 2004.