IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of proving ownership and the lack of locus standi for a party to challenge custody orders in the absence of an FIR or ongoing investigation under relevant animal welfare laws.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter at the admission stage for final disposal with consent.

2. The Petitioner being a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its office at New Delhi, through its representative, preferred the present Petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging the orders passed by the learned Magistrate dtd. 30/7/2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 271/Release/2022/C and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao dtd. 8/9/2022 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 48/2022.

3. Heard Mr. Harish Pandya for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Nikhil Vaze for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Arun Bras De Sa for Respondent No. 3.

4. Mr. Pandya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that both the orders passed by the Courts below are perverse and illegal and are passed without considering the material placed on record. He submits that the custody of two bulls, which is with the Petitioner-Society could not have been ordered to be handed over to Respondent No. 3 since he failed to establish the ownership. Mr. Pandya would submit that there are no documents of the ownership produced by Respondent No. 3. Similarly, even though there is material to show that the bulls were treated with cruelty and they were tied to one tree only with the intention to sell for slaughter, this Court should intervene and reject the claim of Respondent No. 3 for possession of such cattle.

5. Mr. Pandya would submit that the Petitioner is a Society taking care of the cattle/animals and therefore, the custody of the animals will be safe with the Society. It is submitted that only upon proving the ownership, such an order could have been passed. He claimed that the findings of both the Courts below are perverse and thus, need interference.

6. Mr. Pandya would further submit that the custody of the bulls was handed over to the Petitioner-Society by the Police. However, he admits that there is no documentation placed on record. So also, neither an FIR was registered nor a panchanama was drawn while handing over the bulls to the Petitioner. However, he insisted that only because the Police failed to perform their duty, the animals should not suffer further cruelty.

7. Mr. Nikhil Vaze, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that since there is no FIR or investigation or inquiry pending of the alleged contentions raised by the Petitioner in any Police Station or Court, the orders passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the first Appellate Court, cannot be considered as perverse or intervened with the same in favour of the Petitioner. He submits that the Petitioner's custody is only interim and therefore, once the owner comes before the Court and succeeds in seeking the relief of the custody of the animals, the Petitioner has no locus to challenge such orders.

8. Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 claimed that the provisions of Cr.P.C. are only for temporary custody and since neither any FIR is registered nor any investigation is going on, the powers of search and seizure, cannot be gone into. He submits that the Petitioner in its Application/ Complaint admitted that they took custody of the cattle/animals for the purpose of care and protection. He submits that such a reply is filed on behalf of the investigating agency and therefore, no further interference is warranted.

9. Rival contentions fall for determination.

10. In the Petition itself, averments are made from paragraph 10 onwards, wherein it is claimed that Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Member of the Goa State Animal Welfare Board and District Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, South Goa, received specific information that one Mr. Francis brought two bulls on 15/7/2022, one white and one black and tied them in a plot about 300