Custody of animals under the PCA Act must prioritize their welfare, and ownership must be substantiated to prevent further cruelty; interim custody cannot be granted based on forged ownership documents.

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition assailing the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Criminal Revision No.28 of 2023 setting aside the order dated 16th September, 2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-1 (Cog. Taking), Baripada in Criminal Misc. Case No.249/2023, whereby the Revisional Court released the seized cattle to opposite party No. 3 on the grounds inter alia that there is absolutely no bar for the accused owner in taking custody of the animals during the pendency of litigation. Petitioner seeks indulgence of this court under inherent jurisdiction against the said order.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that Jharapokhoria P.S. Case No.164 of 2023 was registered under Section 279 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 (1)(d)(e)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PCA Act’), 9 numbers of cattle were rescued while being illegally transported in a goods carrier vehicle bearing registration No.MH-40-BL-2759 without proper care and arrangement of water, food and medical aid. It is further contended that the local police handed over the cattle to the present petitioner for immediate care, protection and maintenance as they were in extremely weak and miserable condition. No health inspection, identification and marking of such animals were conducted as per Rule 3(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rule, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).

3. In the meantime, the opposite party No.3 filed Criminal Misc. Case No.249/2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-1 (Cog. Taking), Baripada under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the cattle in his favour claiming himself to be the owner. However, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 16th September 2023 (Annexure-6) rejected the petition of the opposite party No.3. The opposite party no.3 being aggrieved and dissatisfied preferred Criminal Revision No.28/2023 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada. The revisional Court allowed the petition of the opposite party no.3 vide the order dated 1st November,2023 (Annexure-5) which is impugned in the present petition.

4. The Revisional Court, while allowing the revision petition of the opposite party No.3 vide its order dated 01.11.2023 has, inter alia, stated as follows:-

“Considering the above submissions and rival submissions of both the parties and on going through the documents available in the L.C.R., I find that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said seized cattle. Undisputedly, the S.I. of Police, Jharapokharia P.S. seized the said cattle on the allegation of commission of the offence U/Sec. 279/34 I.P.C. read with Sec. 11(1)(d)(e)(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It reveals that trial of the said C.T. Case has not yet commenced. The learned Court below has also called for a report from the concerned P.S. relating to requirement for the purpose of investigation wherein, the I.O. has submitted that the alleged seized cat