R. SAKTHIVEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINE common questions of law arose for consideration in all these Criminal Revision Cases, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos. 1025 of 2013 and 1026 of 2013, are aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P.Nos.4763 & 4762 of 2013 respectively dated 31.7.2013, by which the request made by the petitioners for return of 24 cattle for interim custody came to be rejected.

(3.) MR .S.Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.1025, 1026 of 2013, submitted that the Courts below did not consider the claim made by the petitioners in a proper prospective and failed to note that there is no prohibition in releasing the cattle to the petitioners by applying Section 29 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Act). The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are the owners of the cattle and they have not violated any of the provisions of the Act nor committed inhuman treatment to the animals; that no cattle was injured while transporting and the transport was arranged to take them to some other place for agricultural purpose. Further, it is submitted that there is no previous conviction and hence the petitioners should be granted interim custody of the cattle. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the third respondent in whose care and custody cattle have been given now has absolutely no jurisdiction to make any objection and that he is not entitled to be heard.