( 1 ) THE present Cri. Rev. Application is preferred by the petitioner Gadhada Mahajan Panjarapole and Gaushala, through mr. Keshabhai N. Kamdar for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14. 09. 2004 passed by ld. IInd Jt. Addl. Sessions judge, Bhavnagar in Revision Application Nos. 65 and 66 of 2004.

( 2 ) INITIALLY, the petitioner had moved Special Criminal application No. 998/2004 challenging the very order and this court issued notice for final disposal vide order dated 24. 09. 2004 and granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 16. 12. 2004, this court permitted the petitioner to convert Spl. Criminal application into a Cri. Rev. Application which has been now duly registered as Cri. Rev. Application No. 864/2004. When the matter came up for hearing, the parties have jointly submitted that as the parties are very well served with the notice for final disposal when these proceedings were pending before this Court, the present Cri. Rev. Application may be heard finally at admission stage and, therefore, the same is heard finally.

( 3 ) THAT a complaint came to be registered with Gadhada police Station being CR No. 41/2004 for the offences punishable under section 11 (1) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) of the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also under sections 42 and 57 of the Bombay Animals and Cattle Control Act. On registration of the complaint, certain numbers of animals (sheeps and goats) were detained and taken into custody by the police and they were handed over to the Panjarapole of Gadhada. The petitioner is the Farm Manager of Panjarapole which is a registered institute under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, as well as recognised institution by Animal Welfare Board of india. The petitioner, at present is having custody of the animals. Respondent No. 2 is the alleged owner of the animals and in the capacity of the owner of the animals, he had filed an application for custody thereof pending trial before the ld. JMFC, Gadhada at Botad under sec. 457 of Crpc jointly with respondent No. 3 who is the transporter. Ld. JMFC, Botad, after hearing the parties, decided to hand over interim custody of the animals to the petitioner panjarapole vide order dated 24. 05. 2004. As per the allegations, animals were being carried in truck No. GJ-1-U-5672 wherein 83 sheeps and 90 goats were loaded and in truck No. GJ-14-T- 3747 wherein 160 sheeps and goats were carried and the allegation is that they were kept inside the vehicle and were taken to a destination without following the norms prescribed under the law and number of animal kept itself is sufficient to infer that they were carried in inhuman conditions under constant cruelty. However, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 07. 06. 2004, the ld. JMFC rejected the request of the applicants of that application i. e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein for interim custody. The said order of the ld. JMFC was assailed by way of filing cri. Rev. application Nos. 65 and 66 of 2004 separately by both the respondents under section 397 of Crpc in the Court of Sessions, Bhavnagar. The ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, bhavnagar, after verifying various details and hearing the parties, allowed the Revision Applications vide judgment and order dated 14. 09. 2004 granting interim custody of the animals to respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is this order which is assailed by the petitioner by filing present Cri. Rev. application.

( 4 ) IT is submitted by ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. S. K. Jhaveri appearing with ld. Counsel Ms. Jigna Jhaveri for the petitioner that the decision of the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge granting interim custody to respondent nos. 2 and 3 is against the decision of the Apex Court. The ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has failed in verifying the details and scrutinising the fact of alleged ownership of respondent No. 2. Though there was no material and legal error, no element of perversity, ld. Addl. Sessions