The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused, prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to the animals, was not entitled to interim custody of the seized cattle.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, to call for the records pass an order to set aside the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar District dated 25.08.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.3899 of 2021 in connection with Crime No.73 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Aviyur Police Station, Aviyur, Virudhunagar District forthwith.)

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 3899 of 2021 dated 25.08.2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar, allowing the petition, filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant and she lodged a complaint, on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.73 of 2021 dated 18.07.2021 against four persons including the second respondent herein for the offences under Section 429 IPC and Sections 11(1)(d) and 11(1)(e) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant with the assistance of the first respondent police intercepted a vehicle, namely, Ashok Leyland, bearing Registration No.TN-57-R-5565, wherein, 15 bulls and 11 cows were carried in a cruel manner, without valid license or permission for transportation and for slaughtering.

4. It is not in dispute that the above said 26 cattle were seized and as per the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, were entrusted to Goshala for safe custody.

5. The second respondent claims to be the owner of the said cattle has filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.3899 of 2021 seeking orders claiming interim custody of the cattle. The first respondent police has raised objections for returning the cattle to the second respondent.

6. The learned Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2021 granting interim custody to the second respondent by imposing certain conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, the defacto complainant has come forward with the present revision.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, the animals defined therein which are under the age of 10 and also fit for work and breeding should not be used for slaughter, that there are so many procedures to be followed and only after obtaining necessary permission, the cattle shall be taken to slaughter house, that all the cattle in the present case are lesser than 10 years and fit for work and breeding, that three of the cattle were pregnant at that time, that as per the Transport of Animals Rules, the cattle should not be taken in a cruel manner and whatever the vehicle may be more than 6 cattle should not be taken, that the second respondent had tied the legs of the cows and taken them in a cruel manner and that the learned Magistrate, without considering all the above factors, had passed the impugned order mechanically.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that if any animals are seized from the person, who is accused of cruelty, as per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules, the animals should be kept away from him and custody should not be handed over to that person and that in case, if the cattle are handed over to the custody of the second respondent, he would definitely take them to the slaughter house and also will maintain in a cruel manner.

9. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the learned Magistrate, after taking note of all the factors required to be considered under the relevant enactments and also following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 regarding the disposal of the property, has rightly allowed the petition and that neither the petitioner nor the Goshala with whom the interim custody has locus standi to question the orders of the learned Magistrate and claim interim custody of the cattle.

10. The learned counsel for the second respondent would s