LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-298

CHINNASAMY Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

Decided On June 11, 2015
CHINNASAMY Appellant
V/S
The State And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 21.6.2013 passed by the Court below rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for return of cattle.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the accused. The petitioner is running a slaughter house. One Arun Prasanna S/o. Ganesan lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent police on 29.5.2013 against the petitioner herein that he was running an illegal slaughter house without any permission and was in possession of 25 calves and that animal meat and skins of cattle were kept in unhygenic conditions. Therefore, the calves, meat and skins were seized and the custody of the cattle were handed over to the second respondent herein. While so, the second respondent herein filed an application in CMP. No. 2957 of 2013 seeking for a direction to the petitioners herein to provide maintenance to the cattles to which he is entitled to under Section 35 (4) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the same was allowed by fixing a sum of Rs. 2,300/ per day towards maintenance. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner and the same has become final. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate ordered for auction of seized skins and a sum of Rs. 7,200/ - was deposited into the Court by the successful bidder. The second respondent herein filed an application seeking payment to make over the expenses meted out to maintain the calves and the same was allowed on 21.6.2013 and the petitioner did not challenge the said order and the same has become final.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without giving an opportunity of being heard, the Court below passed a non speaking order. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court passed the order by exceeding its limit by imposing conditions. It is submitted that the since the petitioner is the owner of the cattle, the Court below ought to have returned the cattle to him.