The exercise of powers under Section 29(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 depends on the reasonable proof of the conditions mentioned in Section 29(2) for confiscation of animals.

S.C. Pandey, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 11-4-2000, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2000, whereby the Court-below confirmed the order dated 15-3-2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budhar, in Criminal Case No. 217/2000.

2. This order shall also govern Criminal Revision Nos. 597/2000 and 598/2000, parties being in both these revisions, Istyak Ahmed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, as common questions of facts and law arise in these revisions.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 11-3-2000 at Budhar, the applicant was found transporting the cattle in a truck bearing its registration No. as UP-78-N/1437. The truck was stopped near Rest House, Budhar and on checking it was found that 19 cattle were being carried in the truck, who were not being treated well and there was no provision of water and food for the animals in the truck. Thereupon, the Station House Officer of Police Station Budhar made a report and got the animals medically examined by a Veterinary Surgeon. It was found that the animals were not in healthy condition and they were found to have sustained abrasions on their bodies. After completing the investigation a challan was filed against the applicant by the police before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budhar, under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (Act No. 59 of 1960) (henceforth 'the Act') and also under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.

4. It appears that the applicant admitted his guilt before the Trial Magistrate and, therefore, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 11 of the Act and further to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act. It was also directed by the Trial Magistrate that in default of payment of fine by the applicant he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. The Trial Magistrate had also ordered that the 19 animals seized from the custody of the applicant shall be liable to be confiscated under Section 29 of the Act.

5. The appeal filed by the applicant against the aforesaid order of the Trial Magistrate regarding confiscation of the animals, was rejected by the Court-below by the impugned judgment dated 11-4-2000 and the order of the Trial Magistrate was confirmed.

6. In this appeal, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that at best on the allegations made by the prosecution the applicant shall be liable to be charged under Sections 11(1)(d) and 11(1)(h) of the Act and, therefore, the admission of guilt by the applicant would be confined to these provisions and none other. The learned counsel for the applicant further argued that there would be no occasion for exercise of powers under Section 29 of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case and both the Courts-below have wrongly held that the provisions of that Section were attracted.

7. In reply, it is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the non-applicant as well as the intervener that the order passed by the Trial Magistrate is not liable to be appealed against. However, the learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gave ample power against confiscation of properly.

8. In the opinion of this Court, firstly, this point was not raised before the Lower Appellate Court that the appeal did not lie. Secondly, the order of the confiscation of the property in exercise of Section 29 of the Act was in addition to the sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate on the plea of admission of guilt by the applicant. The applicant had never admitted that his property is liable to be confiscated under Section 29(2) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal cannot be said to be against the plea of admission of guilt within the meaning of Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined to a conviction on the plea of guilt. The exercise of power