TAHIR KHA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in Criminal Revision No.11/16 Tahir Khan and another Vs. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurai and another, whereby the learned ASJ has dismissed the revision preferred by the applicants under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. affirming the order dated 26.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Khurai, rejecting the applications filed by the applicants under Section 457 of the Cr.P C.

(2.) Background facts are as follows: -

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the applicants deal in sale and purchase of domestic animals. They purchased the seized animals from the animal -markets which are being held in the rural areas. In support of the said contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the photo copies of the receipts of the purchase of the animals filed with the petition. As such, the applicants are bondfide purchasers. He further submits that the prosecution has not disputed the factum that they are the owners of the seized animals. He further submits that on 6.1.2016 the charge -sheet has been filed in the concerned court in the aforesaid Sections. After referring to the charge -sheet, he submits that there is no evidence on record to the effect that the seized animals are being carried for slaughtering. Under the circumstances, the learned JMFC has dismissed the superdginama application on a very flimsy ground. The learned ASJ has dismissed the revision taking a very technical view. The learned ASJ ought to have allowed the revision directing the police to give the seized animals on superdginama as per seizure memos imposing reasonable and practical terms and conditions, irrespective of the fact that each of the applicants in their superdginama application has sought 17 animals on superdginama. He further submits that for want of proper care and enough fodder in the Khimlasa Goshala, the seized animals are getting weaker every day. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law requiring interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.