ENAAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 16.6.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Deoband, Saharanpur.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 4.6.2010 the complainant of this case V.L.Varun, Sub-inspector of Police Station Ladgaon, Saharanpur was patrolling in his beat. He received a telephonic message on his mobile phone that certain cows and a bull were being carried to certain place who were loaded on a Tata 207 truck. This information was given to the complainant by certain activists of Shiv Sena. At about 10 p.m. on the highway near the village Hasanpur Latuni, the complainant intercepted the said Tata 207 truck. When the said vehicle was searched it was found that 3 cows, one bull and two calves were laden on the said vehicle. Two persons namely Irfan and Inam were found sitting in the said vehicle. On further search, from the cabin of the driver a bundle of wood, an axe, a 10 ft. long rope and two iron knives were recovered. On the basis of these facts the complainant was of the opinion that the animals were being carried to some place for slaughtering. Therefore both the persons were detained. A recovery and arrest memo was prepared at the spot and on the basis of the same an FIR was lodged with the police under Sections 3/5-A/8 of The U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and under Section 11 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

(3.) It has been submitted from the side of the revisionist that the case registered in the matter is based on false allegations, that in the FIR itself it has been stated that on the intervention of some persons of Shiv Sena and the police the vehicle was intercepted and the animals were recovered from the possession of the revisionist-applicant. It has further been submitted that the revisionist and his companion showed the police the entire documents which were valid, but they were ignored and not looked into. It has further been submitted that there is no other claimant who may prefer claim for release of the cattle. It has also been submitted from the side of the revisionist that the cattle were transported for business purpose and not in order to be slaughtered. It has also been submitted that Section 5-A of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Rule 16 framed under the said Act do not require that there should be a permit for transporting animals within the State of U.P. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued vehemently that there is absolutely no circumstance in the case which may indicate that the cattle were being transported with the purpose of slaughtering. He has further stated that only on the ground of whimsical presumption on the part of Shiv Sena activists and the police a false case has been fabricated.