S.G. Shah, J.

1. Applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.09.2013 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar at Mahuva in Criminal Revision Application No. 11 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has while allowing the revision application, quashed and set aside the order dated 29.06.2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talaja in Criminal Misc. Application No. 268 of 2013. Such application was preferred by present respondent No. 2 for possession of 6 buffaloes and one calf of buffalo under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Such animals were taken into custody by the police pursuant to First Information Report registered with Talaja Police Station being II-C.R. No. 91 of 2013 filed by Indrajitsinh Kumarsinh Vala under Section 11(1)(d)(h) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 read with Section 132A and 41(III) D of the Motor Vehicles Act with an allegation that all such animals were cruelly loaded in a small truck and hidden below cover for transferring from Mahuva to Ahmedabad for selling them to slaughter house for slaughtering purpose. At the relevant time, such castles were found in the possession of Ashokbhai Somabhai Vasava and Mustaqmiya Alimiya Malek being driver and cleaner of vehicle in question. From the police record, it becomes clear that while transferring such cattles from one place to another place respondent No. 2, who is claiming to be owner of the vehicle and accused, does not follow the rule under both the Transfer of Animals Act and under Motor Vehicles Act. In both such statutes, there are specific provisions and necessity to get permit to transfer live stock from one place to another place. Therefore there is prima facie evidence to the effect that there was no permit to transfer the cattles from one place to another place and there is lack of basic safety of the animals being transferred.

2. Pursuant to application by the respondent No. 2, first trial Court being the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talaja has by considering all relevant factual details pleaded by the respondent No. 2 and after referring relevant provisions which are to be followed in such situation, came to the conclusion that prima facie there is no substance in the prayer by the respondent No. 2 in as much as he has not followed law and rule and that documents produced by him are not reliable and that if cattles are handing over to respondent No. 2 then certainly he would sale it to the slaughter house and therefore when cattles were in custody of the present applicant, application for the custody of cattles by respondent No. 2 was rejected.

3. Unfortunately the Sessions Court has failed to appreciate the same in the Revision Application and dismissed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. At one place the Sessions Court has referred the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of "Disa Panjarapole vs. State of Gujarat", however, failed to disclose the citations. Whereas so far as statutory breach are concerned, based upon which the Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the application, the Sessions Court has remained silent by recording the submissions only, but without giving cogent reason that why such breach is not considered. What is considered by the Sessions Court is only to the effect that criminal case may continued for long period for which Panjarapol may not be in position to take care of cattle and that applicant-respondent No. 2 will suffer financial loss.

3.1. Unfortunately the Sessions Court has failed to realize certain facts which are emerging from the record and rightly pointed out by the applicant herein viz.;

1) Looking to the FIR, specific allegation is made that animals were taken for slaughtering. The conduct of the accused is relevant regarding treatment to animals. Animals were taken in the early morning, truck was covered by tadpatri, and animals were tied in cruel fashion.

2) The certificate by Talati on