These Criminal Revision Cases arise out of the one and the same occurrence in connection with a case registered in Cr.No.377 of 2014 and hence, all these revision cases are taken up together for common disposal and disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the defacto complainant against the allowing of the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.5283 of 2014, 5288 of 2014, 5289 of 2014, 5284 of 2014, to 5286 of 2014, 5291 of 2014, 5290 of 2014 and 5287 of 2014, by common order dated 19.12.2014, seeking for return of property viz.,seized cattle.

3. The case of the petitioner/defacto complainant is that he is the President of Coimbatore Cattle Care Welfare Trust, an organisation for the welfare of animals. On 25.11.2014, when he was nearing Palladam, he saw nine lorries going ahead of him. On suspicion, when he intercepted the lorries and enquired the drivers and owners of cattle, he came to know that the accused were transporting the animals to Kerala. There are totally 216 animals consisting of buffaloes, cows and calves were kept jam packed and therefore, they sustained grievous injuries. They were not provided with fodder or water. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent, based on which, cases were registered against the second respondents in Cr.No.37 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 11(1) a,d,g,h, 29, 35 and 38(2) h of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, 147, 428, 429 IPC and 237 r/w. 177 of Motor Vehicles Act. After registration of the cases, the owners of cattle preferred petitions before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, seeking for return of cattle belonging to them. The learned Magistrate, by common order dated 19.12.2014, allowed the petitions. Aggrieved against the same, these Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the defacto complainant.

4. Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defacto complainant would bring to the notice of this Court that an illegal act of taking 216 animals in nine lorries from Tamil Nadu to Kerala was intercepted at the instigation of defacto complainant, who is the President of Coimbatore Cattle Care Welfare Trust, an organisation for the welfare of animals. He would further contend that to the alleged owners of cattle, the Lower Court ought not to have granted the custody of animals, because, as per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, the cattle should be taken care of and maintained even during the course of trial in a proper way. When cruelty to cattle is made, rightly Sections 428, 429 and 237 IPC r/w.177 of Motor Vehicles Act are invoked. He would further submit that by transporting in the lorries more than the prescribed number of animals, the owners of cattle have violated the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. To substantiate his contention, learned Senior Counsel would rely on a judgment of this Court reported in Naseerulah vs. State by Sub-Inspector of Police, Coonoor & another, wherein, this Court has elaborately discussed about the various provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, Transportation of Animal Rules 1978, Motor Vehicles Act and Tamilnadu Animal Preservation Act 1958 and this Court has extracted the various violations and has ultimately held that the animals shall not be returned back to the accused, who caused injuries and death to the animals. Further, this Court has clearly held in the judgment how the Lower Court has to take into consideration in such matters relating to return of animals. But, the Lower Court, without following the said judgment has straightaway ordered for return of animals. He would further add that now the cattle were maintained in a Kosala by name Vellayangiri Kosala and therefore, the Lower Court should have directed the alleged owners of cattle to pay the necessary maintenance charges for the maintenance and upkeep of animals, during the course of trial, but, violating the s