Orissa High Court
Sk. Makshad Jamal @ Sk vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 26 June, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.16 of 2025
Sk. Makshad Jamal @ Sk. ... Petitioner
Mukshed Jamal
Ms. Samapika Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite party
Ms. B. Dash, ASC
Mr. T.K. Sahu, Advocate
(SRS Gosala)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
26.06.2025 Order No.
03. 1. Heard Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Gosala and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant revision under Section 438 BNSS is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 10th December, 2024 as at Annexure-3 passed in C.M.C. No.299 of 2024 by learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar corresponding to G.R. Case No.1711 of 2024 arising out of Ghatgaon P.S. Case No.376 of 2024 and further to direct release of cattle in his interim custody on the grounds stated therein.
3. Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged in connection with the alleged incident reported on 27th October, 2024 for 125 cattle found at the spot while being carried under suspicious circumstances. It is further Page 1 of 5 submitted that after Ghatgaon P.S. case No.376 of 2024 was registered under Sections 303(2), 317(2) & 3(5) of BNS and Sections 11(1)(a)(d)(h)(k) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PCA Act'), the petitioner being the owner of the cattle moved the learned Court below seeking interim release and its custody subject to any conditions, but it has been denied vide impugned order dated 10th December, 2024 i.e. Annexure-3 on the premise that identity of the petitioner is not established with reference to the receipts produced at Annexure-2 series. The further submission is that the offences under the PCA Act are not prima facie proved since no cruelty was subjected to the cattle, as they were crossing the road at the relevant point of time and was not being transported by the named accused. The contention is that the petitioner since produced the receipts i.e. Annexure-2 series claiming himself as the owner of the cattle, the learned Court below ought to have released it in his interim custody but the same has been refused. In support of the contention advanced, Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner cites the decision of this Court in Dhyan Foundation Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2024 SCC OnLine Ori. 1338 and the order dated 7th January, 2025 in Naresh Pani & others Vrs. State of Odisha (CRLMC No.4435 of 2024) with the claim that the cattle should be handed over to the petitioner in his interim Zima imposing any such conditions as deemed just and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Gosala submits that a prima facie case is established and it has Page 2 of 5 been stated that the cattle were being carried out without any proof of ownership duly established by the petitioner and since the investigation is in progress, learned Court below did not commit any serious error in denying the custody. It is further submitted that the accused persons have violated the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001and under such circumstances, the interim custody of the cattle should not be allowed in favour of the petitioner. The further submission is that in Naresh Pani (supra), the Gosala has moved an I.A. seeking modification of the order dated 20th September, 2024 and the same is pending for orders.
5. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State supports the contentions of Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Gosala and submits that the learned Court below was justified in denying interim custody of the cattle in favour of the petitioner.
6. In Naresh Pani (supra), this Court had occasion with a similar case and therein, release of the cattle was directed subject to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- within a stipulated period. In Dhyan Foundation (supra), the order with regard to interim custody of the seized cattle having been denied, it was interfered with directing a remand to be consider in view of the documents in possession of the claimant as the owner of the cattle without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. In the above decision, relevant provisions of the PCA Act have been discussed especially with regard to the duties cast upon the persons in-charge of the same to prevent cruelty on animal. A distinction sought to be made by Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision in Dhyan Foundation Page 3 of 5 (supra), while claiming that there has been no cruelty subjected to the cattle in the present case, hence, therefore the offences under the PCA Act are not made out. In the above case, the Court considering the records of the case therein found that the seizure was made with regard to cattle while being illegally transported having been tied and dumped without providing them the food and water. In the case at hand, the cattle were seized from a location while crossing the road and not being transported in any vehicle, so therefore, the contention of Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that cruelty cannot be alleged having committed by the accused persons. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has not been arrayed as an accused along with others as on date. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Gosala submits that there is a possibility of involving the petitioner as an accused, since the investigation is still on.
7. Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and allegations made in the FIR at Annexure-1 and the petitioner since claiming himself to be the owner of the cattle by producing copies of the license and receipts showing the purchase as at Annexure-2 series, the authenticity of which is not seriously doubted by the learned Court below but for the fact that the name of the petitioner in the receipts has mismatched and that the cattle are in the custody of the Gosala since the date of seizure, this Court, being alive to the relevant provisions of PCA Act and decision in Dhyan foundation (supra), is of the view that the petitioner should be allowed to receive the interim custody of the cattle during investigation. This Court is of the further view that the alleged offences have been committed or Page 4 of 5 otherwise vis-à-vis any such involvement of the petitioner would be looked into during enquiry and trial in case there is chargesheet filed against him. But, for the present, since the cattle are in custody of the Gosala ever since the date of seizure, the petitioner having produced the license and purchase of receipts as at Annexure-2 series, in view of doubt entertained by the learned Court below, this Court is also of the view that a direction is required to be issued with for a further enquiry regarding the identity of the petitioner followed by necessary orders. In case, such enquiry by the learned Court below revealed him to be the rightful owner to direct interim custody of the cattle subject to suitable conditions including cost keeping in view of the provisions of Rules of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 and accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with in connection with G.R. Case No.1711 of 2024 arising out of Ghatgaon P.S. Case No.376 of 2024 soon after receipt of a copy of this order by learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar.
9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 01-Jul-2025 12:31:38 Page 5 of 5