IMPORTANT POINT
A person may not be party to the proceedings, yet if he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Court under Section 452 or 453 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is entitled to file an appeal.

JUDGMENT

M B. Shah, J.-On the night of 16th August, 19M P.S.I. Vinchhiya Police Station had received an information that some persons were to transport livestock to the slaughterhouse illegally without any pass or permit by motor trucks. He had, therefore, kept a close watch and at about 12 35 a.m. i.e. during night time he intercepted and seized two trucks carrying livestock. The driver of one motor truck bearing No. GTG 3049 was Mahmad lamalbhai. The driver of the other truck was one Habib Jusab. Both these persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and under' Sections 116 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also under Section 11 (1)(d)of the .Prevention of Cruelty to' Animals Act. 1960. In both the cases the accused pleaded guilty and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jasdan by his judgment and order dated 16th August, 1984 convicted both the persons for the offences punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 40/- and under Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 25/-. At the time of passing the order convicting' the accused, he passed a further order that seized muddamal livestock to be handed over to the drivers or to its 'owners. It seems that before pronouncing the said order the owners of the said livestock had and an application praying that they are the owners of the, livestock and, therefore, muddamal should be handed over to them.

2. It seizing that after seizing the livestock the P.S.I. had handed over its possession to Vinchhiya Mahajan Panjrapole. This seems to have taken place at about 1.35 a.m. on 16th August, 1984. The Police Inspector submitted a charges-sheet on the same day i.e. on 16th August, 1984. In the .charge-sheet itself it was mentioned that livestock was seized and it was handed over to Panjrapole. Ex. 3 on record shows that the accused of the case were produced before the Magistrate at about 4.45 p.m. on 16th August, 1984. On the same day statements of the accused were recorded and a charge against them was explained to them where it was pointed out that they were taking the livestock to slaughterhouse without pass or permit and also that the trucks were driven by both the accused of different cases rashly and megligently. In both the cases the accused admitted their guilt on the same day. 'The accused also submitted a pushes stating that they plead guilty to the charge. So after recording the plea in both the cases the learned Magistrate bas passed the aforesaid order of conviction and simultaneously he had ordered that the livestock should be banded over to the accused as it was their first offence or it should be returned to its owners.

3. Against the said judgment and order, the Trustees of Vinchhiya Mahajan Panjrapole filed two Criminal Appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No. 13/84 and Criminal Appeal No. 13A/84 before the Sessions Judge, Rajkot District Rajkot. At the time of healing of the said appeals it was contended on behalf of the accused and the owners of the livestock that Trustees have no locus standi to' file ail appeal because they were not interested in the livestock and they cannot be said to be aggrieved parties within the learning of section 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge negatived the said contention by holding that the Trustees of Vinchhiya Mahajan Panjrapole Trust were interested in the welfare and maintenance of the healthy, sick and disable animals. It was also contended on behalf of the Trustees that as the livestock was being transported to the a laughter house without obtaining necessary pass or permit and, as the, drivers of the truck' ,have pleaded guilty to the charges, Panjrapole Trust was vitally interested and therefore, they have locus; standi to file an appeal under Section 454 of the Code the learned Sessions Judge thereafter held that the learned Ma