Vehicle owners are liable for maintenance charges of animals during custody, and interim custody can be granted under specific conditions to prevent deterioration of vehicle value.

JUDGMENT :

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of both the sides.

2. In both these Petitions, the common question arises i.e. whether the Petitioners who are owners of the seized vehicles for the offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act, 1960 and Rules are entitled for custody of vehicles on payment of transport, treatment and animal care charges from the date of receipt of custody of the animals by the Animal Care take shelter (Gaushala) till final disposal of the animals?.

3. In Writ Petition No. 1145 of 2024, the Petitioner No.1 Abdul Majeed s/o Abdul Nabi, claimed to be the owner of vehicle No.AP-07 TB-4911. The petitioner No.2 Kureshi Hymad Ussain s/o Yakub Sab, claimed to be the owner of vehicle bearing No.TS-16-UB 6896. Both these vehicles appear to be seized on 01.02.2024 while transporting 39 cattle in the vehicles, mercilessly in cruel manner. It is alleged that, the legs, heads and body of animals were tied by ropes. As per the F.I.R., dated 01.02.2024 lodged by the Police Head Constable Shri Raman Fakira Gedam it appears that, he seized 39 cattle (39 Buffaloes) and both the vehicles, which were found transporting the cattle in violation of provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 125 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He drawn the seizure panchanama of cattle and vehicles. Thereafter he handed over custody of cattle to Respondent No.2 Gaushala (Animal Care take shelter ) for welfare.

4. The Petitioner No.1 filed O.M.Cri.Appln. No.22 of 2024 and the Petitioner No.2 filed O.M.Cri.Appln. No.23 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umri and prayed for release of their vehicles bearing Nos. AP-07 TB-4911 and TS-16 UB 6896 on Supurtnama. On 23.02.2024, the learned J.M.F.C. Umri, passed the order in O.M.C.A. No.22 of 2024 and O.M.C.A. No.23 of 2024 and declined to grant custody of the vehicles because both the vehicles are used for transporting of cattle for slaughtering, ear-tag of animals and identifications were not mentioned in the transport receipt, so also, there is violation of Motor Vehicle Rules 125-D while transportation of animals.

5. Being aggrieved by said order, both the Petitioners invoked jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing Criminal Revision Application No.6 of 2024 and Criminal Revision Application No.7 of 2024. On 04.04.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, passed the impugned order in Criminal Revision Application Nos.6 of 2024 and Criminal Revision Application No.7 of 2024 and dismissed both the Revisions.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners canvassed that, the Petitioner No.1 is the owner of vehicle No. AP-07- TB-4911, Eicher motor goods carrier HMV. The Petitioner No.2 is the owner of VE commercial vehicle goods carrier MMV bearing Registration No.TS-16 UB 6896. Both the Petitioners are used to purchase and sell cattle in the local market to derive the income. However, both the vehicles have been seized on 01.02.2024 in connection Crime No.0052 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 11(1) (d) (e) of the Prevention of Animals Act, 1960, Section 6 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1995 and Section 125(D), 2(i) of the Central Motor Vehicle Act (Amended) 2016. The learned counsel for the Petitioners canvassed that, since the Petitioners are the owners of respective vehicles, they are entitled for custody of the vehicles on Supurtnama under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate erroneously rejected both the Applications and directed to pay maintenance charges of Rs.300/- per day per animal to the Respondent No.2 Devkrupa Gaushala & Govidnyan Kendra, Himayatnagar. So also, the learned Revisional Court failed to consider the fact that, the petitioners voluntary and permanent relinquished their right over the cattle in favour of Respondent No.2 Gaushala, therefore, the Petiti