Gujarat High Court
Khodadhor Panjrapole Dhandhuka vs State Of Gujarat & on 12 January, 2015
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/3578/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3578 of 2014
================================================================
KHODADHOR PANJRAPOLE DHANDHUKA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 12/01/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the petitioner Shri Khodadhor Panjrapole Dhandhuka through its Trustee, calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, District:Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.64 of 2014 by which, the learned Judge rejected the Revision Application filed by the petitioner, affirming the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhandhuka, below Exh.1 in Muddamal Application No.140 of 2014 Page 1 of 6 R/SCR.A/3578/2014 ORDER filed under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release of livestock.
2. It appears that respondent No.2 was intercepted transporting goats and sheeps in a truck. The police seized the Truck as well as the livestock and registered an offense at Dhandhuka Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide C.R.No.II34 of 2014 for the offenses punishable under Section 11(d)(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
3. It appears that after the seizure of the livestock, the respondent No.2 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.139 of 2014 under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed for the release of Muddamal i.e. livestock. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was pleased to order release of the livestocks subject to the terms and conditions described in the order dated 07.05.2014. The petitioner herein being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Magistrate filed Criminal Revision Application No.64 of 2014, challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhandhuka.
Page 2 of 6
R/SCR.A/3578/2014 ORDER
4. The main contention of the petitioner before the Revisional Court was that learned Magistrate ought not to have released the Muddamal without affording them an opportunity of hearing. The Revisional Court dismissed such contention and rejected the Revision Application.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has filed present petition before this Court. Learned Advocate Mr.Virat G. Popat appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly submitted that after the seizure, the livestock was handed over to the Panjarapole and the Panjarapole took care of the livestock and till date, they are being taken care of. He however, submitted under instructions that out of total goats and sheeps, some of the sheeps and the goats died on account of some sickness. Learned APP Ms.Mehta has also taken instructions to that effect from the officer who is present in the Court. However, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that since the respondent No.2 is an accused for the offenses punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act, livestock could not have been handed over to him pending the final Page 3 of 6 R/SCR.A/3578/2014 ORDER disposal of trial. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Magistrate ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the Panjarapole and this aspect has not been properly considered even by the Revisional Court.
6. On the other hand, learned APP Ms.Mehta submitted that the learned Magistrate has specifically observed in the impugned order that notice was issued to the petitionerPanjarapole and it was duly served. However, nobody remained present on behalf of petitionerPanjrapole.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is not proper on the part of the petitioner to submit that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted on the basis of the instructions received by her that some of the goats and sheeps died on account of not taking proper care by the petitioner and therefore, submitted that appropriate order be passed by this Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on Page 4 of 6 R/SCR.A/3578/2014 ORDER record, the only question falls for this Court's consideration is whether the Courts below committed any error in passing the impugned orders.
9. The scope for judicial review in the petition under Article 227 filed against the two concurrent orders passed by the Courts below is in very narrow compass. Here, the learned Magistrate has imposed certain conditions while giving custody of Muddamal to respondent No.2, which can be seen from the impugned order dated 07.05.2014. Further it is clear from the record that the learned Magistrate issued notice to the petitionerPanjarapole. However, it has chosen not to remain present before the learned Magistrate and therefore, it is not proper on the part of the petitioner to contend that opportunity of hearing was not given by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to the petitioner and therefore on this ground also, the petitioner fails.
10. From the submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates for the parties upon instructions received by them that out of the total number of sheeps and goats seized by Investigating Officer, some Page 5 of 6 R/SCR.A/3578/2014 ORDER of the sheeps and goats died in Panjarapole in absence of proper care. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the custody of the livestock is to be given to the original ownerrespondent No.2 herein on the terms and conditions prescribed by the learned Magistrate in the order dated 07.05.2014. Thus, the petitioner Panjarapole is hereby directed to hand over the custody of the Goats and sheeps which are alive within the period of one week from the date of receipt of this order.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the petition fails and accordingly dismissed.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) ANKIT Page 6 of 6