CHAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST, Mandleshwar (West Nimar) in Cr.A. No. 216/04 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 6.12.2004 passed by JMFC, Kasrawat in Criminal Case No. 37/96, was dismissed, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondents No. 2 and 3 were prosecuted under the provisions of M.P. Krishi Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam (Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act) and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by respondent No. 1, alleging that respondents No. 2 & 3 were transporting 24 cows in a truck in cruel manner. In that criminal case, cows were seized by the police. Learned JMFC released them on Supurdgi to respondent No. 4 who was the president of Goushala Mail Ashram Bamnala upon executing Supurdginama, for which the petitioner stood as surety. After framing of the charges and recording of evidence vide judgment dated 22.12.2007 learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons and also observed in para 18 of its judgment that respondent No. 4 is directed to hand-over the custody of animals to the respondents No. 2 & 3. Since the custody of the animals were not handed over by respondent No. 4 to respondents No. 2 & 3, therefore, learned Court below issued notices to the petitioner who stood as surety to respondent No. 4. An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 22.12.2007 passed by JMFC, wherein the observations relating to handing over the custody of animals to respondents No. 2 & 3 was challenged. This appeal was registered as Cr.A. No. 216/04 and the same was dismissed by the impugned order, against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) TO hand over the custody of animals to respondents No. 2 and 3, therefore, it was necessary on the part of learned Court below to issue notices to respondent No. 4 and provide an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner was surety to the respondent No. 4, therefore, it was mandatory on the part of learned Court below to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well. It is submitted that learned appellate Court also committed error in holding that the appeal is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the custody of the animals were not given to Narayan respondent No. 4 in his personal capacity, but the same was given to respondent No. 4 as president of Gaushala Mail Ashram Bamnala. It is submitted that while giving direction to the respondent No. 4 to handover the custody of animals to respondents No. 2 & 3, number of aspects of the case were at all not taken into consideration by the learned Courts below. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court whereby the appeal was dismissed and also the observations made by the learned trial Court in para 18 of the order relating to the direction to the respondent No. 4 to handover the custody of animals be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the status of petitioner was of surety to respondent No. 4. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 was the person in whose custody the animals were given and the petitioner is the surety to respondent No. 4, therefore, there was no justification to issue any notice to the petitioner or to respondent No. 4 before passing any order. It is submitted that learned appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal holding the same as not maintainable.