O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, aggrieved by the Orders dated 06.01.2010 in CRL.M.P.No.16 of 2010 in Crime No.328 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, wherein the trial Court ordered interim custody of the case property i.e., 42 cows and calves to the respondent No.2.

02. The facts of the case as per record available are that the revision petitioner is the owner of 42 cows and calves which were valued of Rs.4,00,000/- were recovered by the Police while arresting the accused and the said petitioner was directed to return the cows and calves on his personal bond of Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety.

03. Aggrieved by the same, the third party/revision petitioner herein has filed this Criminal Revision Case, on the following grounds:

i. The learned Magistrate has passed the Order mechanically without any application of judicial mind.

ii. The learned Magistrate should have given an opportunity to the petitioner who is fighting for cause of animals.

04. No representation on behalf of the revision petitioner and the respondent No.2. As seen from the proceedings sheet, there was no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner and the respondent No.2 since long time.

05. Heard Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 and perused the record.

06. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Orders dated 06.01.2010 in CRL.M.P.No.16 of 2010 in Crime No.328 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, liable to be set aside ?

P O I N T:

07. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 that this Criminal Revision Case has been filed in the year 2010 and the Police have already completed the investigation and filed charge sheet and thereby the remedy of the revision petitioner is to approach the concerned trial Court.

08. The Police have registered a case against the accused for the offence under Section 5 and 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 on 08.05.2009 and issued First Information Report in Crime No.328 of 2009.

09. As per the contents of the FIR on 08.05.2009 at about 02:10 PM., the accused by name M.Rama Krishna transporting 42 cows and calves in Lorry bearing No. AP 16 U 9114 to slaughter house without having any certificate by Veterinary Doctor or permission for transport and after apprehending the accused, the prosecution has also seized the 42 cows and claves and aggrieved by the same, the owner of the alleged cows and calves filed the application.

10. As per the proceedings sheet dated 18.10.2010, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the cows were not in custody of the Police, but they were in custody of the petitioner-society since 08.05.2009. Subsequently, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the Police have completed the investigation in Crime No.328 of 2009 and filed charge sheet.

11. As seen from the record, the trial Court without therebeing any material to show that the respondent No.2 is the owner of the cows and calves has passed Orders and the trail Court should have in fact directed the cows and calves to be placed a certified Gowshalla for the safe custody until the ownership and other requirements are decided or until the charge sheet is filed.

12. It is not clear as to what was the material placed before the trial Court to decide the said petition that respondent No.2 is the owner of the said cows and calves. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has committed error in passing the Orders by giving the custody of cows and calves to the respondent No.2. As this Criminal Revision Case is filed about 13 years ago and since charge sheet is already been filed, by this time main case must have been disposed