( 1 ) ). In this group of applications, which arises out of different orders with respect to interim custody of animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1960"), the following questions arise for consideration : q. 1. Whether Panjarapole has locus to apply and also approach to the High courts in the matter of interim custody ? q. 2. Whether as a rule pending investigation, enquiry or trial, the custody of the animal should be given to Panjarapole ? q. 3. Whether the owner of the animal alone is liable to pay the costs of maintenance of the animals while in custody of Panjarapole ? q. 4. Whether the seizure of animal by the police in non-cognizable case under the Act of 1960 and other ancillary Acts, is legal ? What is its effect of order for interim custody ? q. 5. What criteria should be adopted by the Courts while directing the interim custody of animal seized for the offence under the Act of 1960 and other ancillary acts ? question-1 :

( 2 ) ). Mr. M. M. Tirmizi, learned Counsel appearing for the owners of the animal submits that Panjarapole has no locus to either apply for the interim custody of the anima