ORDER :

1. The petitioner is owner of 28 buffaloes, which were seized pursuant to FIR No. 241/2020, registered at Police Outpost-Manora, District Jashpur against him and co-accused persons for offences under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 2004’) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

2. As per FIR, truck bearing Registration No. HR-55Q-5980, which was plying from the State of Chhattisgarh to Jharkhand Slaughter house carrying 23 male buffaloes and 5 female buffaloes were seized and abovestated offences were registered. The petitioner made an application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of interim custody of said cattles, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur on 8.12.2020 in the light of Section 7 of the Act of 2004, which has been affirmed by the revisional Court and custody has been directed to be given to the registered Goshala in the light of Section 7 of the Act of 2004 and decision of this Court in the matter of Jalil Ansari and Others vs. State of C.G. and Others, 2012 (1) CGLJ 176 against which, this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed.

3. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner being owner of the cattle is entitled to have interim custody of seized cattle as there is no express statutory bar contained in the Act of 2004 and Section 7 of the Act of 2004 is only enabling provision for keeping the seized cattle till the conclusion of prosecution, if application for interim custody is not made or it is rejected, but it will certainly not bar the application for interim custody under Section 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. He would further submit that decision rendered by this Court in Jalil Ansari (supra) requires reconsideration.

4. Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae, would submit that since there is no express statutory bar in the Act of 2004 in granting interim custody, therefore, the principle of implied prohibition would not be applicable in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. In Jalil Ansari (supra) this Court (coordinate Bench) held as under:

“11. The Act of 2004 is therefore, special enactment prohibiting slaughter, prohibition of possession and transport or sale of Agriculture cattle. The Act is applicable in respect of the Agriculture cattle being animal specified under the schedule appended to the Act. The Act contains special provision with regard to interim custody/possession of seized Agriculture cattle. It clearly mandates that till the conclusion of prosecution, seized Agricultural cattle will be under the custody of nearest registered Goshala, Gosadan, Gorakshan sansthan or other registered Sansthan. Therefore, till the conclusion of prosecution, interim custody of seized Agriculture cattle could only be given to specified institutions. The provision contained in Section 7 of the Act of 2004 therefore, impliedly prohibits interim custody of Agriculture cattle to any person or institution other than those specified in Section 7 of the Act. In view of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act, provisions of Section 7 will have overriding effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.

18. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners however submitted that even though, the interim custody of the Agriculture cattle could not be given to the petitioners, it could not be given to the private individuals/villagers. In this regard, it is suffice to say that the provisions contained in Section 7 are unambiguous and interim custody of Agriculture cattle could be gr