The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Competent Authority or the Divisional Commissioner has the exclusive jurisdiction to make orders regarding the possession, delivery, disposal, or release of seized bovine animals under the Act of 1995, and the provisions of the Act prevail over the general law contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 5.1999 and 15.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur by which he allowed the application of the Respondent No. 2 Bhima Ram and ordered that 20 bovine animals seized in FIR No. 7 1/99 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur be given to the Respondent No. 2 on Supurdginama.

2. It arises in the following circumstances :On 12th March, 1999 at about 12.30 AN’l when the petitioner got information that certain bovine animals were being taken out of the City, they immediately rushed towards ITI Circle, Jodhpur to catch-hold the trucks carrying bovine animals and Nakabandi was made by the police at about 12.30 AN’l in the night at ITI Circle and Trucks bearing No. RJI3-G-4614 and RJ/13-G-4624 were caught by the police, in which bovine animals were being carried by the accused without any licence, therefore, the case was registered against the accused under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Magistrate or Export) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1995”). Thereafter, vide order dated 17.5.1999 passed by the learned Collector, Jodhpur, the custody of the seized bovine animals was given to the petitioner-Shri Jain Ratna Youvak Sangh to maintain them. During trial, an application was submitted by the Respondent No. 2 before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur for handing over the 20 bovine, animals i.e. bullock to him. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur through order dated 5.1999 allowed that application of the Respondent No. 2 and ordered to release the 20 bovine animals on Supurdginama to the Respondent No. 2 and furthermore, vide order dated 15.1999, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur directed the SHO, Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur to hand over the 20 bovine animals to the Respondent No. 2, if not required in any other case. Aggrieved from the said orders dated 5.1999 and 15.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitione

3. In this petition, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur ordering to hand over the 20 bovine animals on Supurdginama to the Respondent No. 2 are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, as according to Section 7 of the Act of 1995, it is only the competent authority, which is Collector in the instant case, who may entrust the custody of the seized bovine animals to any such agency, Gaushala or Gosadan outside the area or to any other suitable person, who volunteers to maintain such animals. Sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Act of 1995 further provides that whenever any bovine animal is seized under the Act of 1995, the Competent Authority or the Divisional Commissioner shall have jurisdiction to make orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or release of such animal. Thus, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur had no power or jurisdiction to order for release of the 20 bovine animals on Supurdginama to Respondent No. 2. Hence, it was prayed that this petition be allowed and the impugned orders dated 5.1999 and 15.1999 passed by the learned Addl, Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur be set aside.

4. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 that the impugned orders passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur are within the framework of law as since the bovine animals were seized under the provisions of the Code of Cri’minal Procedure, therefore, provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable in the presen