The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the provisions of a special enactment, such as the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, can override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, limiting the discretion of the Magistrate and imposing specific requirements for granting interim custody of seized cattle.

1. The aforesaid petitions filed by the respective petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") are being disposed of by this common order as common question of law arises for consideration.

2. The respective petitioner, in all the above petitions, are alleged to have committed offence under the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2004"). In addition to allegation of commission of offence under the Act of2004, the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.433 of 2011, is also alleged to have committed offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1960") and under Section 47 ABC, 48, 49 ABC, 50, 59, 53, 54( I) (2) (3) of Transportation of Cattle Act as also under Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.270 of2011 are alleged to have committed offence under Section II of the Act of 1960. The petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.391 of2011, are also alleged to have committed offence under Section II of the Act of 1960.

3. The petitioners in each of the aforesaid petitions tiled an application for grant of interim custody of the cattle, alleged to have been seized in connection with allegation of commission of offence as stated above. In all the aforesaid petitions, except Cr.M.P.No.39I of20 II, application for grant of interim custody was rejected by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, whereupon revision was tiled and revision has also been dismissed. In Cr.M.P.No.391 of 20 II, the application filed by the petitioners in their respective cases for grant of interim custody was allowed by the Magistrate, against which, the State preferred revision. The revision filed by the State, has been allowed and the order of grant of interim custody in favour of the petitioners has been set aside, against which, petitioners have filed the instant petition.

4. In all the cases, application for grant of interim custody of cattle filed by the petitioners, who are facing prosecution for commission of offence under the Act of 2004 and in some cases under other enactments also, has been rejected on a common ground that in view of the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act of 2004, interim custody of the cattle could not be given to the applicants, who are facing prosecution, during the pendency of the trial for alleged commission of offence under the Act of 2004.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners made common submissions to the effect that the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act of 2004, do not override or abridge the power of the Court to grant interim custody as provided under Section 451/457 of the Code. It has been submitted that the provisions under Section 451 of the Code alone are applicable in the matter of grant of interim custody during the pendency of investigation, enquiry and trial. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being a central enactment, would override the provisions contained in the Act of 2004, and therefore, to the extent of inconsistency, the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act of2004 are not applicable. It is also submitted that as interim custody of cattle, which has been seized from the petitioners, have not been claimed by the nearest registered Goshala/Gosadan/Gorakshan sansthan or any other registered Sansthan, provisions of Section 7 will have no application, and therefore, the petitioners, who are the owners of the cattle, in respect of which, the receipts of purchase of cattle have been submitted, have a preferential right and are entitled for interim custody during the pendency of investigation,-enquiry or trial. It has also been contended that unless prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 2004 are made out, the petitioners' application for grant of interim custody could not be rejected by applying the rigour of Section 7 of the Act of 2004,