The discretion of the Magistrate in granting interim custody and the need for expeditious trial proceedings to avoid prolonged custody of seized animals.

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 17 October 2019 of a Single Judge of the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

3. On 17 March 2019, a truck was intercepted and was found to be transporting eighteen heads of cattle - fifteen bullocks and three buffaloes. The eighth respondent was driving the truck and was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation about the relevant permits. The truck was taken to the police station and the cattle were seized. FIR No. 59 of 2019 was registered at Parbhani Rural Police Station on 17 March 2019 for offences punishable under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995¹[Amendment Act 1995 (brought into force on 4 March 2015)] and Section 6 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act 1976²["Maharashtra Act"], Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act I960³["PCA Act"], Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and other allied provisions.

4. The second to eighth respondents claim to be owners of the seized cattle. The appellant is a gaushala engaged in the welfare, preservation, and protection of animals in Parbhani, Maharashtra. An application dated 20 March 2019 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani^4[ "JMFC"^] by the second to eighth respondents under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 seeking interim custody of the cattle on the ground that they were the owners of the cattle. Thereafter, the appellant also filed an application on 22 March 2019 for interim custody of the cattle till the conclusion of the trial under the proviso to Section 8(b) of the Maharashtra Act and Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.

5. By an order dated 1 April 2019, the JMFC allowed the application filed by the appellant. The JMFC rejected the application by the private respondents, noting that they did not have proper permits for carrying the cattle in the truck at the relevant time. The JMFC observed that the cattle will be safe in the custody of the appellant. In addition, the private respondents were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 100/- per head of cattle per day towards maintenance and treatment of cattle to the appellant.

6. The Additional Sessions Judge-3, Parbhani allowed the revision preferred by the private respondents on 24 April 2019 and held that they were entitled to the custody of the seized animals, subject to the execution of an indemnity bond for the preservation of the cattle. The Sessions Judge noted that being the owners, the private respondents had a preferential right to get interim custody of the seized cattle. The Sessions Judge allowed the revision noting that the trial court failed to take notice of Section 457 of the CrPC,.

7. The order of the Sessions Judge was questioned in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the appellant. The High Court by its impugned judgment dated 17 October 2019 dismissed the petition. The High Court upheld the order of the Sessions Judge granting custody to the private respondents by relying on a decision of this Court in Manager, Pinjrapole Deudar and Another v. Chakram Moraji Nat and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 520. The High Court noted that prima facie, the material on the record indicated that the cattle were being subjected to cruel conditions for transportation since as many as eighteen cattle were loaded into one truck. In this context, the High Court held:

"16. Bearing in mind these principles, if one examines the matter in hand, the only material before the Magistrate which would prima facie show that the cattle was being treated cruelly is the fact that as many as eighteen cattle i.e. fifteen bullocks and three buffaloes were being transported in one vehicle. As has been pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 framed pursuant to enabling provision