BHAVNAGAR PANJRAPOLE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.09.2013 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar at Mahuva in Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has while allowing the revision application, quashed and set aside the order dated 29.06.2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talaja in Criminal Misc. Application No. 268 of 2013. Such application was preferred by present respondent No. 2 for possession of 6 buffaloes and one calf of buffalo under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Such animals were taken into custody by the police pursuant to First Information Report registered with Talaja Police Station being II -C.R. No. 91 of 2013 filed by Indrajitsinh Kumarsinh Vala under Section 11(1)(d)(h) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 read with Section 132A and 41(III) D of the Motor Vehicles Act with an allegation that all such animals were cruelly loaded in a small truck and hidden below cover for transferring from Mahuva to Ahmedabad for selling them to slaughter house for slaughtering purpose. At the relevant time, such castles were found in the possession of Ashokbhai Somabhai Vasava and Mustaqmiya Alimiya Malek being driver and cleaner of vehicle in question. From the police record, it becomes clear that while transferring such cattles from one place to another place respondent No. 2, who is claiming to be owner of the vehicle and accused, does not follow the rule under both the Transfer of Animals Act and under Motor Vehicles Act. In both such statutes, there are specific provisions and necessity to get permit to transfer live stock from one place to another place. Therefore there is prima facie evidence to the effect that there was no permit to transfer the cattles from one place to another place and there is lack of basic safety of the animals being transferred.

(2.) PURSUANT to application by the respondent No. 2, first trial Court being the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talaja has by considering all relevant factual details pleaded by the respondent No. 2 and after referring relevant provisions which are to be followed in such situation, came to the conclusion that prima facie there is no substance in the prayer by the respondent No. 2 in as much as he has not followed law and rule and that documents produced by him are not reliable and that if cattles are handing over to respondent No. 2 then certainly he would sale it to the slaughter house and therefore when cattles were in custody of the present applicant, application for the custody of cattles by respondent No. 2 was rejected.

(3.) THE issue of custody of such animals/cattles has been dealt with in several other matters and as usual one will find different cases, so as the decision on the issue of custody of such animals also. Though it can be argued that Panjarapoles have no preferential rights over an animal, it cannot be ignored that while deciding such application, facts and circumstances of each case is to be looked into and decision is to be taken solely based upon the facts and circumstances of each case independently rather than relying upon any observations from any of such judgment without considering the factual details.