ORDER :

1. With the consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the matter is heard today finally.

2. By way of this petition under Sections 451 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 25/08/2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sojitra, District, Anand below Exh-4 in Criminal Case No.47 of 2020 and the order dated 14/09/2020 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Petlad in Criminal Revision Application No.14 of 2020; and to release interim custody of muddamal vehicle “Bolero Pick-Up” bearing registration No.GJ-23-AT-0833 in favour of the petitioner, which was seized in connection with the FIR being II-CR No.48 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 11(1)(d)(e)(f) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 5(1A), 6A and 8(2) of The Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, on suitable terms and conditions.

3. Learned advocate Mr. S. S. Saiyed for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and is in the business of transportation. The vehicle was intercepted by the complainant and two oxen were found in the vehicle. It was alleged that the said animals were transported in a cruel manner, without any basic facility and, therefore, FIR being II-CR No.48 of 2019 was registered with Sojitra Police Station for the offence as stated above.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed submitted that the petitioner is real owner of the vehicle and that requisite procedure has not been followed for the seizure of the muddamal vehicle. It was submitted that the vehicle is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and if the same remains idle, its condition may deteriorate and later it would not be of any use. He submitted that the Courts below ought to have considered the fact that the oxen were not carried for slaughter purpose and to the allegations so made, at the most, the petitioner would be liable for fine. He stated that the owner of the cattle had hired the petitioner’s vehicle for transporting them from Tarapur to Petlad for farming purpose. The 7/12 abstract produced on record shows that the owner of the cattle was in farming business. The RC Book of the vehicle suggests that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle.

5. The provisions of Sections - 3 & 11(1)(d), (e) & (f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 have been invoked in this case.

5.1 Section 3 provides for the “Duties of the person having charge of animals”. It provides that it shall be the duty of every person having the care or charge of any animal to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction upon such animal of unnecessary pain or suffering.

5.2. Section 11 relates to “Treating animals cruelly”. Sub- Section (1)(d) provides about any person, conveying or carrying, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; sub-clause (e) of section (1) provides about any person keeps or confines any animal in a cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; and sub-clause (f) of sub-section (1) provides against any person who keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; then all such offences shall be punishable for a fine of less than Rs.10/- if it is a first offence. This provision of fine has been made in context of persons who are in charge of animals and who fail to undertake the duty as prescribed under the Act.

6. The petitioner is also facing prosecution under Sections 5(1A), 6A and 8(2) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, as amended by Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017.

6.1. Section 5(1A) is with regard to prohibition against slaughter without Certifi