The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in granting interim custody of seized animals, considering the prevention of cruelty and misuse, as well as the need to maintain the animals in a healthy condition.

JUDGMENT :

B.A. Patil, J.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-Bhagwan Mahaveer Gaushala being aggrieved by the order passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi passed in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 26 of 2019 dated 06.05.2019 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankeshwar in C.C. No. 1215/2018 dated 25.01.2019.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons for making personal gain had stored bullocks, she-buffaloes and oxen and they were not provided with any food, water and other things and they were being treated with cruelty and were stored with an intention to be slaughtered. A complaint was lodged on 18.11.2018 in this regard and a case was registered. During the course of investigation 49 bullocks were seized belonging to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Subsequently, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. to release the cattle to their interim custody. The said application was seriously contested by the petitioner-organisation and contended that they are entitled for the interim custody of 49 bullocks and they are ready to keep them in custody. The Court below, after taking into consideration the application, allowed the application filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the application filed by the petitioner- organisation came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner filed criminal revision petition before the learned District Judge. The said petition was heard and decided on 06.05.2019 and by confirming the order of the Trial Court, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition. As such, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned District Judge, without proper application of mind and law have passed the impugned order, they have not kept in view the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for short). As per Rule 3 sub-rule (b) of the Rules, the Magistrate is authorized to direct the animals to be housed at an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organization or Gaushala during the pendency of the litigation. But, without following the said procedure, both the Courts have passed an order for interim custody to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is his further submission that though the case has been registered against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for having violated the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1964, for short) and also under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short, the Act, 1960). It is his further submission that if the interim custody of the said 49 bullocks is ordered to be given to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, again there will be cruelty to the said animals and there is every likelihood of they being used for the purpose of slaughter, the said apprehension cannot be overruled. He further submitted that the Courts below have not kept in view the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Mustakeen and Others rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 283-287/2012, wherein it has been observed that when the petitioners are vitally interested in preservation and custody of the animals, then under such circumstances, the Courts below ought to have passed an order to keep them in the custody of the petitioner and the said custody can be finalized only after the final adjudication of the case. He also relied upon the decision of other High Courts to substantiate the said facts. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition an