The central legal point established in the judgment is the inhumane transportation of cattle and the violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960 and Transportation of Animal Rules 1978/2001.

These Criminal Revision Cases arise out of the same facts viz., transportation of cattle in a lorry in connection with the cases registered in Cr.No.474 of 2015 and hence, both revision cases are taken up together for common disposal and disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Revision Cases were filed by the owner of the vehicle and cattle against the dismissal of the petitions in C.M.P.Nos.3294 and 3295 of 2015, by orders, dated 06.08.2015, seeking for return of lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-26-TT-3589 and return of cattle viz., 6 male buffaloes, 26 female buffaloes and 2 buffalo calves.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is the owner of the lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-26-TT-3589, has used the said lorry for illegal transportation of large number of cattle. The defacto complainant is alleged to have intercepted the vehicle while the lorry was passing through main road at Tharamangalam and handed over the said lorry with cattle to the respondent police. On the basis of which, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act and Section 429 IPC r/w. Sections 96 and 97 of Transportation of Animal Rule 1978/2001. After registration of the case, the owner of cattle preferred petitions before the Lower Court seeking for return of vehicle and cattle belonging to him. But the said petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, these Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle and cattle.

4. Mr. R. Margabandhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of vehicle and cattle and therefore, he is automatically entitled to get to the custody of the same, but, the Lower Court has wrongly dismissed the petitions seeking custody of the cattle and vehicle and hence, he seeks to allow the revision and pray for ordering return of vehicle and cattle.

5. Mr. Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the vehicle was involved in an illegal act of transportation of huge numbers of cattle and therefore, the Lower Court has rightly dismissed the petitions.

6. Heard both sides and I have carefully perused the entire materials available on record.

7. At the outset, I have to state that here is a case, where huge numbers of cattle were transported without any facility in vehicles in an inhumane manner and thus, there is a clear violation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960. It also violates Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. As per Rules 47 to 56 of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, no goods vehicle should carry more than six cattle and there should be a valid certificate by a qualified Veterinary Surgeon that the animals are fit to travel and each consignment should bear a label showing the name and address of the consignor and the consignee. Admittedly, in this case, 34 numbers of cattle were taken in a lorry and they were kept jam-packed with a rope fastened through their nose, that too, without any certificate in violation of the rules. That by itself is a cruelty to animals. Several cattle sustained bleeding injury and suffered suffocation because of the inhumane transportation. With all these things can we able to safely conclude that the owner of the cattle is the proper person to take custody of the cattle. Definitely not. The owner of the cattle cannot be the person, to whom, the custody of cattle can be entrusted. Basic courteousy requires. The cattle subjected to inhumane practice, that too, without giving any protection and therefore, the cattle should not be entrusted to the person concerned. The cattle should be given proper basic maintenance. In my considered opinion, during the course of trial, the cattle should not be entrusted to the custody of the person who is accused of the offence of committing cruelty to animals and therefore, the Lower Court has correctly dismissed the petitio