MOHD MOINUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is sought to be filed by the second accused (A2) against order dated 04.03.2010 passed by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar, by which the lower Court dismissed the petition filed by him under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C., refusing to give custody of the seized animals to him.

(2.) The petitioner/A2 and another (A1) are accused of offences punishable under Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cows Slaughter and Animal Prevention Act, 1977 and Section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It is alleged that A1 and A2 used to purchase buffalos and transport the same to Chengicherla Slaughter house, where they slaughter the buffalos for meat and that A2 purchased 75 buffalo calves at Hussnabad Shandy of Karimnagar District and that on 19.02.2010, A2, who is owner of DCM van bearing No. AP 29 U 9654 was transporting the purchased buffalo calves to chengicherla slaughter house for slaughtering without any certificate from competent authorities and that after purchasing 75 buffalo calves, A1 loaded them in DCM van of A2, being driven by A1. On the way at NFC Nagar, Punjabi Dhaba, when the DCM van was stopped, 17 buffalo calves out of 75 buffalo calves were found in dead condition. After seizure of the buffalo calves, dead calves were buried and live calves were handed over to 'Goshala' of Dathatreya Ashramam, Maheshwaram, for taking care of those live buffalo calves.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner/A2 was charged with a minor offence and that the seized animals are not liable for confiscation even if the accused are going to be convicted. It is not correct. Section 29 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, (in short, the Act) deprives a person who is convicted of ownership of the seized animals to the following effect: