Point of Law : Section 451 Cr.P.C. it appears that unless owner of the animal in respect of which he is facing prosecution, is deprived of the custody (which can be done only on his conviction under the Act for the second time), no bar can be inferred against him to claim interim custody of the animal.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Legality, propriety and correctness of Judgment and order dated 23.02.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4(4)/2020, and the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (M) in Nazira P.S. Case No. 424/2020 is put to challenge in this revision petition, under section 397/399/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the petitioner Md. Rahimuddin.

2. It is to be noted here vide impugned Judgment and Order 23.02.2021, the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 09.10.2021, passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (M), Nazira dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking custody of the seized cattle/cows.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petitions is adumbrated herein-below:

“The petitioners, namely, Md. Rahimuddin had purchased 34 numbers of cattle from Naharkatiya Mangalbariya Bazar on 22.09.2020 and carried the same to Kharupatia in three Mini Trucks for business purpose. At about 3.23 p.m. on that day one Shri Jayanta Rajkhowa, President, Tai Ahom Yuva Parisad, Assam stopped the Trucks, in front of Nazira Lakhimi Ali of Nazira Nagar and lodged an FIR with the O/C Nazira Police Station for carrying 34 cattle disobeying the provision of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Upon the said FIR the O/C Nazira P.S. has registered a case, being Nazira P.S. Case No. 424/2020, under section 11(1)(a)(d)(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Thereafter, police seized the cattle and handed them over to Krishna Govardhandhari Gaushala. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed one petition before the learned SDJM (M), Nazira, seeking custody of the seized cattle. But, the learned SDJM(M) had, vide impugned order dated 06.10.2020, rejected the petition and also directed the petitioner to execute a bond of Rs. 2,32,807.50 (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Seven point Fifty Paisa) being the maintenance cost. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar against the impugned order, dated 06.10.2020. But, vide impugned Judgment and Order, dated 23.02.2021, the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar had dismissed the revision petition.”

4. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned judgment and orders, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant petition on the following grounds:

(i) that, the learned Court below had failed to consider the fact that the informant had lodged the case on personal grudge on being failed to make payment of 50 lacs as demanded by him.

(ii) that, the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner has purchased the cattle for business purpose and he had genuine receipt of purchasing the same.

(iii) that, the learned Court below utterly failed to consider the fact that after handing over the custody of the cattle to Krishna Gabardhandhari Gaushala, the condition of the cattle becomes worse and seven cattle had already died due to improper care.

(iv) that, the learned court below had failed to appreciate the fact that there is no bar in purchase and sale of cow in open market, and that the impugned judgment and orders caused serious miscarries of justice.

5. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P.

6. Mr. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits thatthe petitioner had purchased 34 numbers of cattle from Mangalbaria Bazar of Naharkatiya and carries the same to Kharupetiua for agricultural purpose in three Trucks, and he has all the receipts, which are enclosed with the petition from page 22 to 27. Mr. Mahmud further submits that there is no bar in inter district transport of the animals and that out of 34 cattle, 7 cattle had already died in the cu