Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 15264
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DHYAN FOUNDATION – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
A482/24299/2022
The rightful owner of an animal is entitled to its release, even if it is in the custody of a third party.
Headnote:
ANIMAL CRUELTY - RELEASE OF ANIMAL - RIGHTFUL OWNER
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Dhyan Foundation, a registered body recognized by the Animal Welfare Board of India, had been granted interim custody of a bovine (buffalo) in a case under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The rightful owner, opposite party-2, filed a release application seeking the release of the bovine on the ground that he was the rightful owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the release order passed by the lower court was not illegal or arbitrary, as the custody of the bovine had been directed to be given in favor of the rightful owner, who was not a charge-sheeted accused in the criminal case.
Issues: Whether the release order passed by the lower court was illegal or arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002)10 SCC 283, which held that the rightful owner of an animal is entitled to its release, even if it is in the custody of a third party.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application filed by the applicant, Dhyan Foundation, challenging the release order passed by the lower court.
Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24299 of 2022
Applicant :- Dhyan Foundation
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arya Suman Pandey,Saurabh Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Shoeb Khan
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicant,
the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Mohd. Shoed Khan, the
learned counsel for first informant/opposite party-2.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
challenging order dated 15.6.2022, passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate in Case Crime No.178 of 2022 (State Vs. Jasveer),
under section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty of animal cruelty Act,
whereby release application filed by opposite party-2 has been
allowed as well as the order dated 27.7.2022 passed by Sessions
Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2022
(Dhyan Foundation Vs. State of U.P. and Another), whereby
aforesaid criminal revision arising out of order dated 15.6.2022
has been rejected.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that interim custody
(supurdigi) of bovine (buffalo) was given in favour of applicant.
However, subsequently, the rightful owner/opposite party-2
filed a release application seeking release of bovine on the
ground that since he is the rightful owner of the same therefore,
the Bovine (bufallo) be released in his favour. Concerned
Magistrate, considered the release application in the light of
aforesaid and ultimately allowed the same by means of order
dated 15.6.2022.
Feeling aggrieved by order dated 15.6.2022, applicant
approached Sessions Judge, by means of Criminal Revision No.
112 of 2022 (Dhyan Foundation Vs. State of U.P. and Aother),
which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.7.2022. The
revisional Court passed the judgement of concurrence after
discussing the matter in detail.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is a
registered body and recognized by Animal Welfare Board of
India, therefore, he has locus in the matter. It is next contended
that release order passed by Court below is manifestly illegal
inasmuch as the custody of the bovine has been directed to be
given in favour of opposite party-2. On the aforesaid premise,
he further submits that no finding has been returned by Court
below as to why interim custody which was given in favour of
applicant is required to be altered or modified. On the aforesaid
premise, orders impugned are illegal and arbitrary and is liable
to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Mohd. Shoed Khan, the
learned counsel for first informant/opposite party-2 opposed
the present applicant. Learned counsel for opposite party-2
submits that opposite party-2 being the rightful owner of the
bovine filed release application in terms of Section 451 Cr.P.C.
He has then invited attention of court to the judgement of the
supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of
Gujarat, (2002)10 SCC 283 as well as in Manager,
Pinjrapore Dedar and Another Vs. Chakram Moraji Nat
and Ors. and in Bharat Amratlal Kothari and another Vs.
Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Others, passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 2020 of 2009. On the aforesaid premise,
he submits that Courts below have not committed any illegality
in passing the impugned orders.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for applicant has referred to the
judgement of Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Mustakeem
and Ors, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 283-287 of 2002. He
has passed on a compilation of judgement on which he wants to
place reliance. Perusal of the same goes to show that aforesaid
judgements relied upon by learned counsel for applicant are
clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the custody in
present case has been given in favour of rightful owner who is
not a charge sheeted accused in the criminal case.
This being the position, this Court does not find any illegality in
the orders impugned.
In view of above,
