THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4571 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/third party against the order dated 27.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2025 in Cr.No.27 of 2025 of by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Asifabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 and 3/owners of the buffaloes filed a petition under Section 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking release of the property i.e, 09 bulls from respondent No.2 and 11 bulls from respondent No.3 total 20 bulls which worth of Rs.2,50,000/- which was seized in Cr.No.27 of 2025. The trial Court after hearing both sides, vide order dated 27.02.2025 allowed the petition and the property was returned to the owner of the property. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition.

3. Heard Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State. Though notice served upon respondent Nos.2 and 3, none appeared on their behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal, improper, and liable to be set aside and that the trial Court erred in relying on the statements of the accused, who is a highly interested party, without proper scrutiny. He further submitted that the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are clearly made out from the FIR and the confession statement, and that the accused is engaged in cow slaughter business under the guise of livestock trade and that the unofficial respondents, in collusion with respondent No.2, hatched a pre-planned conspiracy and approached the trial Court through backdoor methods seeking interim custody of the seized cattle.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the offence is punishable under Section 11(1)(a) and 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCAA) and that the seized animals are currently housed safely in the petitioner’s Gowshala and are being properly cared for, and handing them over to the unofficial respondents, who are accused of cruelty and slaughter, would endanger their lives, as they are likely to be taken directly to slaughterhouses. He further contended that the trial Court wrongly relied on documents of ownership submitted by the unofficial respondents without conducting any physical verification. He further contended that there is no evidence to support their claim of agricultural activity to justify the ownership of the cattle and that it is also brought to the notice of the Court that a similar pattern is being followed in several other police stations where, after seizure of cattle by the police, they are being released based on false claims by such respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the unofficial respondents are nothing but agents or owners of cow slaughtering businesses and that the respondents have violated several provisions of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, including failure to produce veterinary fitness certificates (Form H), absence of first aid kits in vehicles, no proper labeling on trucks, lack of sufficient space for each animal, inadequate feed and water during transport, absence of anti-slipping material, and transporting more than six animals per vehicle. He pointed out that due to the overcrowded and illegal transport of cattle, many animals were injured. The trial Court failed to consider this crucial aspect and passed the impugned order in complete disregard of Rule 56(c) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, Rule 125-E of the Central Motor Vehicle (11th Amendment) Rules, 2007, and Section 17 of the Telangana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act.

7. The learned counsel also contends that the trial Court i