GITABEN B SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of applications, which arises out of different orders with respect to interim custody of animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960'), the following questions arise for consideration:

(2.) Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned counsel appearing for the owners of the animal submits that Pinjarapole has no locus to either apply for the interim custody of the animal or to approach to the Higher Courts in that regard. In the Criminal Proceedings for the offences under the said Act of 1960, the concerned parties are only the owner or accused and the State. It is only under Sec. 35 of the Act of 1960, the concerned Magistrate may direct to send the animal to pinjarapole. This is itself would not give power to pinjarapole to ask for the custody.

(3.) Learned counsel relies on an unreported decision of this Court rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 804 of 1985 on 30.10.1985, wherein this Court (Coram : M.B. Shah, J., as His Lordships then was) said, 'In my view, as such respondent No. 2 has no locus stand in the matter because possession of the animals was handed over to Pinjarapole only as a custodian.' It may be stated that in the said case, the Pinjarapole was the respondent No. 2. He has also referred to the order dated 2.9.1996 of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 2349/96 wherein the Apex Court rejected the appeal of pinjarapole saying that: