MAHAMED JAMALBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the night of 16/08/1984 P.S.T. Vinchhiya Police Station had received an information that some persons were to transport livestock to the slaughter-house illegally without any pass or permit by minor trucks. He had therefore kept a close watch and at about 12-35 a.m. i.e. during night time he intercepted and seized two trucks carrying livestock. The driver of one motor truck bearing No. G.T.G. 3049 was Mahmad Jamalbhai. The driver of the other truck was one Habib Jusab. Both these persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code and under secs. 116 & 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also under sec. 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 In both the cases the accused pleaded guilty and the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jasdan by his judgment and order dated 16/08/1984 convicted both the persons for the offences punishable under sec. 1279 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 40.00and under sec. 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 35.00. At the time of passing the order convicting the accused he passed a further order that seized muddamal livestock to be handed over to the drivers or to its owners. It seems that before pronouncing the said order the owners of the said livestock had filed an application praying that they are the owners of the livestock and therefore muddamal should be handed over to them.

(2.) It seems that after seizing the livestock the P.S.I. had handed over its possession to Vinchhiya Mahajan Panjrapole. This seems to have taken place at about 1.35 a.m. on 16/08/1984 The Police Inspector submitted a charge-sheet on the same day i.e. on 16/08/1984 In the charge-sheet itself it was mentioned that livestock was seized and it was handed over to Panjrapole.. Ex. 3 on record shows that the accused of the case were produced before the Magistrate at about 4.45 P.M. on 16/08/1984. On the same day statements of the accused were recorded and a charge against them was explained to them where it was pointed out that they were taking the livestock to slaughter house without pass or permit and also that the trucks were driven by both the accused of different cases rashly and negligently. In both the cases the accused admitted their guilt on the same day. The accused also submitted a purshis stating that they plead guilty to the charge. So after recording the plea in both the cases the learned Magistrate has passed the aforesaid order of conviction and simultaneously he has ordered that the livestock should be handed over to the accused as it was their first offences or lit should be returned to its owners.

(3.) Against the said judgment and order the Trustees of Vinchhiya Mahajan Panjrapole filed two Criminal Appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No. 13/84 and Criminal Appeal No. 13A/84 before the Sessions Judge Rajkot District Rajkot. At the time of hearing of the said appeals it was contended on behalf of the accused and the owners of the livestock that Trustees have no locus standi to file an appeal because they were not interested on the livestock and they cannot be said to be aggrieved parties within the meaning of sec. 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge negatived the said contention by holding that the Trustees of Vinchhiya Mahajan Panjrapole Trust were interested in the welfare and maintenance of the healthy sick and disabled animals. It was also contended on behalf of the Trustees that as the livestock was being transported to the slaughter house without obtaining necessary pass or permit and as the drivers of the truck have pleaded guilty to the charges. Panjrapole Trust was vitally interested and therefore they have locus standi to file an appeal under sec. 454 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter held that the learned Magistrate was required to follow the provisions of secs. 29(1) and 29(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 before disposing of the livestock. He therefore remanded the matter to the trial Court for determining it after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties including the State and after considering the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge Rajkot District Rajkot on 11-9-84 ink Criminal Appeals Nos. 13/84 and 13A/84 the petitioners have filed these two revision applications.