Ownership verification is essential before granting zimma of seized property, emphasizing the need for documentation over verbal claims.

1. Heard learned counsel Ms. A. Gayan for the petitioner Dhyan Foundation Goushala represented by Gayatri Kapur.

2. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Section 483 of the Cr.PC and Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Revision No. 32/2024, upholding the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned JMFC in connection with Lala P.S. Case No. 29/2024. It is submitted that vide order dated

05.02.2024, the learned JMFC has passed an order for zimma of the seized 7 heads of cattle to the respondent No. 2 who claims to be the owner of the cows.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without documents and on verbal submission of the respondent No. 2, the learned Court has granted zimma of the cattle to the respondent No.

4. Heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and thus no formal notice is required to be issued. However, sufficient copies of the petition to be furnished during the course of the day. Issue notice to respondent No.2 through registered post with A/D as well as usual process returnable within 4 (four) weeks.

6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

7. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although the order of the learned JMFC dated 05.02.2024 reflects that the seized cows have to be released after proper verification of the documents of the owner, yet the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi clearly reflects that the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted in person that ‘his investigation is almost complete but he could not submit the FF because the owner Ashik Ahmed Barbhuiya could not appear before him.’

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the FIR clearly reflects that the animals were transported in a cruel manner as the respondent No. 2 does not deserve zimma at this stage.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for interim stay or suspension of the impugned order.

10. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. It appears that there is a prima facie case for interim stay.

11. Call for the scanned copies of the Trial Court Record.

12. Meanwhile, the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 in connection with Lala P.S. Case No. 29/2024 and the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 in connection with Criminal Revision No. 32/2024 are stayed till the next date of listing.

13. List accordingly.