Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The issue involved in the Criminal revision is:-

whether a person under mere claim of owner or representing so called owner, either to kill or to sell for slaughter, entitled to interim custody of cows and bulls seized from him, when those are allegedly possessed for slaughter, from the national importance of cows, which are the substitute to mother and God and being the sacred national wealth?

2. It was against the order dated 03.02.2017 in Crl. M.P. No.160 of 2017 in Crime No.206 of 2016 of Nalgonda Rural Police Station, passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Magistrate, Nalgonda; dismissing the application for interim custody of 63 cows and 2 bulls that were seized under cover of panchanama while they were grazing in the outskirts of Kanchanapally Village, that were secured by the petitioner and other accused to offer them to be killed by slaughter for distribution of cow meat for the Muslim festival of Bakrid and with that aim the accused persons secured accused No.2 for purchasing cows and bulls from farmers for sale by suppressing the fact. It is pursuant to said disclosure statement leading to the seizure of the cattle as a fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the cattle were seized and the crime was registered.

3. The revision petitioner Ramavath Hanuma @ Hanumanthu is accused No.2 in said Crime registered against four accused for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Prohibition of Cows Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act II of 1977 (for short Act II of 1977) and 11 (1) (b) of Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The petitioner herein for interim custody of those cows and bulls is claiming that he was grazing the cows and bulls at the time of said seizure and those are to be returned to the owners. Those cows and bulls after production and pursuant to the order of Court were handed over to Gowshala for their safety of life, preservation, feeding and custody.

4. Learned Magistrate in discussing the interim custody petition holding not entitled, also referred the expression of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mustakeem and others, SLP (Crl. Appeal Nos.283-287/2002). It is impugning the same; present revision is maintained.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 and also learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the material on record.

6. It is one of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cows were grazing in open place and that there is no any cruelty to attract Section 11 of Act of 1960 and even Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Act II of 1977 have no application and that the seizure and handing over of animals to Gowshala is illegal and it is not in accordance with the procedure established by law and the cows cannot be kept in illegal custody in any Gowshala but for to return to the petitioner. It is also the contention that sacrifices to god in the religious functions otherwise is no offence.

7. Whereas it is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State that the order of the lower Court holds good and there is prima facie accusation under the Act II of 1977 supra and the procedure is established by law that on information that cows are being subjected to slaughter for sacrifice on the occasion of Muslim festival, the police are entitled on such information and from suspicion to seize and there is no wrong in entrusting their custody to the Gowshala for safe custody. Hence, prayed to dismiss the revision.

8. So far as Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Act II of 1977 are concerned, the very wording of Sections 5 and 6 is clear in reference to the panchanama contents and the punishment for the offence under the said Section is defined under Section 10 of the Act, leave about Prevention of Cow Slaughter