SK. SABIR ALLI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the impugned order dtd. 7/1/2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karanjia for having confirmed the order dtd. 15/12/2020 in CMC No.111 of 2020 of the learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia who declined to release a vehicle seized in connection with Karanjia P.S. Case No.214 dtd. 6/11/2020 registered under Sec. 379 IPC and Sec. 11 (d), (e) and (f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PCA Act') solely on the ground that it was previously involved in a similar case and for having violated the conditions of the court imposed earlier.

(2.) Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seized vehicle should have been released in favour of the petitioner subject to such terms and conditions he being the owner but it was declined by the learned courts below simply for the reason that it had previously been seized in connection with Karanjia P.S. Case No.160 dtd. 2/9/2020. On the other hand, Mr. Rout, learned AGA submits that since the condition imposed in the earlier case while releasing the vehicle was violated rightly therefore the learned courts below refused to release it in favour of the petitioner as there was every likelihood of the same being again used in the illicit transportation of animals in contravention of the provisions of the PCA Act. Similarly, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Trust justified the impugned orders of the learned courts below.

(3.) It would be apposite to make a mention of the relevant provisions of Rule 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 (in short 'the Rules') dealing with the subject which are extracted below: