Orissa High Court
Mohamad @ Mohd. Irfan vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 22 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.732 of 2025
Mohamad @ Mohd. Irfan .... Petitioner
Mr. B.Jalli, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.K.Swain, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
22.10.2025 Order I.A. No.1087 of 2025 No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant petition is filed seeking condonation of delay in presenting the revision beyond the stipulated period in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. A delay of 319 days is reported as per the SR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the reason stated, the revision could not be filed in time and that apart, it is for modification of the conditions imposed by the learned court below, while considering the release of the seizure vehicle in favour of the petitioner dealing with an application Section 457 Cr.P.C.
5. Recorded the submission of Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.
Page 1 of 66. Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and even though the delay has taken place in filing of the revision, accepting the explanation offered towards such delay, the Court is inclined to condone the same in the interest of justice.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. Consequently, the IA is allowed with the delay being condoned.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge CRLREV No.732 of 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned decisions by order dated 2nd January, 2024 passed in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.103 of 2023 by the learned SDJM, Khurda arising out of G.R. Case No.335 of 2023, whereby, an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim release and custody of the seized Container vehicle bearing Regd. No.AP-03-TE-9078 in his favour has been allowed but subject to a deposit towards cost etc. and other conditions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question allegedly seized in connection with the case pending in the file of learned Page 2 of 6 court below corresponding to Khurda Sadar P.S. Case No.17 of 2023 registered under Sections 379/34 IPC read with Sections 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1990(1934AD) (shortly as 'the PCA Act'). It is further submitted that the petitioner is having no other source of income and hence, the seizure vehicle should been released in his favour without imposing any such condition directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.27,66,400/-(Rupees twenty-seven lakhs sixty six thousand four hundred) payable to Dhyan Foundation, Bologarh towards expenditure, cost etc. vis-à-vis maintenance of the cattle left in their zima. The further submission is that the valuation of the vehicle in question as per the ARTO is Rs.27,66,400/-and hence, any such payment of cost by the petitioner is hugely disproportionate and hence, the said condition should be dispensed with directing its release in his favour with the fulfillment of other conditions and to that extent, the impugned order dated 2nd January, 2024 at Annexure-2 is required to be modified.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State submits that the expenditure already incurred and to be borne by the Foundation is required to be deposited by the petitioner in view of Rule 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and hence, it has been so directed by the learned court below for the petitioner to make deposit in terms thereof. In support of such contention, Mr. Swain, learned AGA cited a decision of this Court in Jiba Bikash Parisad Vrs. State of Odisha and Page 3 of 6 others 2021(II) OLR 1016, wherein, it has been held that the provisions of the PCA Act and Rules framed thereunder are mandatorily to be followed at the time while considering interim release of the vehicles involved in illicitly transporting the cattle.
5. In fact, as per Rule 4 of the Rules and sub-rule (2) thereof, the Magistrate shall consider the rate specified by the Animal Welfare Board or the District Magistrate as the case may be for transport, maintenance and treatment of the seized animals while directing its deposit in terms of Section 35(4) of the PCA Act. The rates specified by the Animals Welfare Board of India have been reproduced by the this Court in Jiba Bikash Parisad (supra) and according to Mr. Swain, learned AGA, it has been duly followed while directing the petitioner to deposit the cost towards maintenance, transport, etc. in respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the Foundation. A calculation has been reached at by the learned court below accordingly and at last, an amount of Rs.27,66,400/-has been directed to be deposited by the petitioner to the concerned Foundation. While considering the application for release under Section 457 Cr.P.C. the learned court below has imposed such other conditions to be complied with by the petitioner besides deposit of the cost. But, considering the report of the ARTO regarding the valuation of the seized vehicle stands at Rs.27,66,400/-and the deposit having been directed is for an amount of Rs.27,66,400/-, the predicament of the petitioner and his inability to comply such a condition as against the valuation of the vehicle in question, the Court is of the humble that in Page 4 of 6 view of Rule 4 of the Rules and provisions of the PCA Act, he cannot avoid making any such payment towards maintenance and other cost in respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the Foundation but at the same time, to direct the petitioner to make a onetime deposit for an amount of Rs.27,66,400/-would not be appropriate. Hence, the Court is inclined to direct the learned court below to consider interim release and custody of the seizure vehicle subject to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-by the petitioner and thereafter, to go for recovery of the balance in instalments. In the considered view of the Court, any such direction to pay the entire amount in lump sum without releasing the vehicle is certainly to cause immense, inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner and he should therefore be allowed to take interim custody of the same and simultaneously, to pay back and the clear outstanding balance in instalments with an initial deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-as such a course of action would instead serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. Such is the view of the Court also for the reason that the vehicle in question is lying in the custody of the local police exposed to sun and rain and it is no profitable either as its conditions is likely to deteriorate being exposed to the vagaries of the climatic conditions. In other words, it is a fit case, where, the above direction is necessary for compliance by the petitioner while receiving the interim custody of the seizure vehicle.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
Page 5 of 67. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with a direction to the learned SDJM, Khurda to allow interim release and custody of the seizure Container vehicle bearing Regd. No.AP-03-TE-9078 in favour of the petitioner subject to verification of its ownership and deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the concerned Foundation with an undertaking regarding payment of the balance of the cost in instalments. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 2nd January, 2024 in Criminal Misc. Case No.103 of 2023 as at Annexure-2 is modified to the extent as aforesaid.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Ohc, Cuttack Date: 23-Oct-2025 14:38:13 Page 6 of 6