THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6622, 6623 and 6624 OF 2020

COMMON ORDER :

The present criminal petitions are filed by the same petitioner/3rd party under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside/quash the orders of the trial Court as detailed below :

2. This Court in all these criminal petitions heard Mrs.G.Shanthi, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner Sri GL Narasimha Rao and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State. Though notices are ordered against the respondent No.2, none appeared for him.

3. The brief facts are that on 18.09.2020 at about 06.30 hours Inspector of Police, PS Maripeda along with his team intercepted the accused Nos.1 to 5 while they were transporting cattle numbering to 19 in DCM Van bearing No.AP 12 V 2307, without taking safety measures and violating the rules and when questioned, they stated that they were transporting the cattle from Kuravi to Navabpet Sandy. Accordingly, the police seized the cattle and registered Crime No.196 of 2020 and the cattle were handed over for safe custody to the petitioner gowshala.

4. During pendency of proceedings, Crl.MP No.85 of 2020, Crl.MP No.83 of 2020 and Crl.MP No.84 of 2020 in Crime No.196 of 2020 were filed by the respective petitioners/accused seeking return of the cattle contending that they are required to eke out their livelihood of agriculture. The trail Court, vide impugned orders, ordered for release of cattle as prayed for with certain conditions. The trial Court directed the office to address a letters to the concerned SHO and the petitioner herein not to entertain transfer of case property cattle and to return the cattle to the respective petitioners by obtaining stamped receipts and to file the said receipts into the trial Court.

5. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner/3^rd party filed the present criminal petitions contending that the orders of the trial Court are illegal, improper and incorrect, the trial Court failed to understand the by-pass plan of the 2nd respondent to obtain custody of the cattle, the accused are punishable for the offences under Section 5 read with Section 10 of Telangana Prevention on Cow Slaughtering and Andhra Pradesh (Telangana) Amended Act and 11(1) PCAA and RWE 50, 56(C) Transport and Animal. Further, the cattle were in safe custody of the petitioner gowshala from the date of their seizure and since the respondent No.2 in all these petitions are in the business of live stock and works for slaughtering companies and charges of cruelty and slaughtering are made against them, giving interim custody of the cattle to the 2^nd respondent causes endanger to their lives. The trial Court failed to take into consideration the violations of Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, Central Motor Vehicle (11^th Amendment) Rules, 2015 and Telangana Cow Slaughter and Animal Prevention Act, committed by the accused No.2 while transporting the buffalos. The 2^nd respondent in all these petitioners are not the owners of the cattle. The 2nd respondent by misrepresenting the trial Court with regard to their occupation obtained the orders from the trial Court and hence, they are liable for perjury. The trial Court failed to take into consideration the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP Vs.Mustakeem and others, Crl.A.Nos.283-287 of 2002 of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is on record that the petitioner is the custodian of the cattle and hence, it is necessary party to be heard before ordering for release of the cattle but without causing any notice on the petitioner, the impugned orders were passed. Stating thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to allow the present criminal petitions.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner has no role in the proceedings before the trial Court and that it is only a custodian and it cannot question the release of cat