MAKBULHUSEN TORAMIYA SAIYED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 1.10.2020 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, Mukam, Bardoli in Criminal Revision Application No.30 of 2020 by which the learned Judge rejected the Criminal Revision Application thereby affirming the order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palsana dated 10.9.2020 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for release of livestock seized as muddamal in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11214046201423 of 2020 registered with Palsana Police Station, Surat (Rural) for the offence punishable under sections 3, 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d), 11(1)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is a small businessman engaged in purchase and sale of animals for earning his livelihood. The petitioner is the owner of eight buffaloes and three calves which were transported in the truck which was intercepted by the police personnel and a criminal complaint being C.R. No.11214046201423 of 2020 came to be filed at Palsana Police Station. The truck was seized by the police officers with animals alleging that they were very closely tied to each other in a cruel manner with no facilities of fodder and water. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained permission for transporting the animals for animal husbandry purpose from R.T.O. Mehsana. The petitioner had purchased the said buffaloes and calves from village Nandasan and the same were being transported for the purpose of selling in the said truck with all facilities of fodder. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was having certificate given by Sarpanch, village Nandasan at the time of transportation of the said buffaloes.

(3.) Mr. Imran Pathan, learned advocate for Ms. Bhakti M. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted even assuming that the offence of cruelty is committed then also it is the first offence of the present petitioner. He further submits that the livestock were being transported under valid certificate of permission issued by RTO for transportation of animals. He has relied upon various decisions of this court and the Supreme Court taking a view that in a case where the offence has been committed for the first time, the custody of the muddamal must be handed over to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the animals are with the Panjrapole wherein they are kept in unhygienic condition and the Panjrapole authorities are not maintaining the animals properly.