Karnataka High Court
Gau Gyan Foundation vs Govindagowda on 7 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24536
CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6936 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
GAU GYAN FOUNDATION
REG. OFFICE 108,
JATT HOUSE, VILLAGE DHOOL SIRAS,
DWARKA SECTOR 24
NEW DELHI - 110 077
REP BY SANJAY KULKARNI
S/O. SURESH RAO KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT K-302 ROYAL LEGEND APARTMENTS,
KODICHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
NEAR MADURA GARMENTS, BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)
signed by
KAVYA G AND:
Location:
High Court 1. GOVINDAGOWDA
of Karnataka S/O. BALAPPA GOWDA
POLICE PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
GABBUR VILLAGE, KUTAGANAHALLI POST,
KOPPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT - 58229
2. SRI BEEMAPPA @ DODDABEEMAPPA,
S/O HANUMAPPA HARIJANA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/O # 61, GABBUR VILLAGE,
KUTAGANAHALLI,
KOPPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT - 58229
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24536
CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SRI PUTRAPPA
S/O HANUMAPPA ABBIGERE,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O WARD-1, GINIGERE VILLAGE,
KOPPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT - 58229
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BAGEPALLI PS,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561207
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K., HCGP FOR R4)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN
CRL.RP.NO.31/2024 DTD 24.10.2024 AND PASS THE ORDER
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO HANDOVER THE
CUSTODY OF THE 19 CATTLE TO NAMMA NADU GAUSHALA,
NADUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, GUDIBANDE TALUKU, CHIKKABALLAPURA
DISTRICT FOR CARE AND MAINTENANCE, THEREBY ALLOW THE
ABOVE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24536
CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:
"WHEREFORE, petitioners humbly prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to set aside order passed by the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in Crl.R.P.No.31/2024 dated 24/10/2024, and pass the order directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to handover the custody of the 19 cattle to Namma Nadu Gaushala, Naduvanahalli Village, Gudibande Taluku, Chikkaballapura District for care and maintenance, thereby allow the above petition, in the interest of justice."
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 27.07.2024, the container lorry bearing number KA-52-B-0299 was intercepted resulting in custody of 19 cattle being taken by respondent No.4 - Police Authorities, which registered an FIR in Crime No.313 of 2024 against one Girish and Imam Husen - accused Nos.1 and 2 for alleged offences punishable under Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Section 11(1) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Karnataka prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Ordinance, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:24536 CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025 HC-KAR 2020, Section 192(A), 177 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
In the said proceedings, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application in C.R.No.313/2024 under Section 497 and 503 of BNSS, 2023 seeking interim release / custody of the seized cattle. By order dated 26.09.2024, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who approached the Revisional Court in Crl.Rev.Petition No.31 of 2024, which was allowed by the Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 24.10.2024 by holding as under:
" ORDER This memorandum of petition under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is filed by the petitioner seeking for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed in Bagepalli PS Crime No. 313/2024 by Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagepalli.
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the petition is that, the respondent police have registered the crime No. 313/2024 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Section 11(1) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, under Sections 4, 5 and 12 of Karnataka Prevention of slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Ordinance, 2020 and under Sections 177, 192(A) of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alleging that on 27.07.2024 at about 4:30 am when the complainant and her staff were on night -5- NC: 2025:KHC:24536 CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025 HC-KAR patrolling duty in Bagepalli town received credible information about illegal transportation of cattle from Gangavati of Kopal District to Thamasanahalli village of Hosakote taluk via Bagepalli and accordingly she and her staff were waiting near MRF Tyre showroom on DVG road at about 5:00 am, a Echar goods vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA- 42/B 0299 came from TB Cross side and on inspection they found transporting of 19 cattle ie., cows and oxen in the said vehicle in cruelty without providing food and water to them and without any pass or permit and thereby they seized the same and registered the aforesaid case against the owner and driver of the said vehicle. The petitioners are innocent agriculturist and they have not committed any offences as alleged. The petitioners are the owners of the cattle and they are purchased the said cows and oxen at APMC market, Koppal and producing the receipts bearing No. 005706, 005707 and 005708 and the respondent police have seized the said cattle under PF No. 275/2024 dated 29.08.2024. The petitioners are the owners of the said cattle and they are required the same for their day to day work as they are agriculturist and depending upon the said cows and oxen for their daily work. The petitioners have moved application before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagepalli in Crime No.313/2024 for the release of the said cows and oxen and the said application has been dismissed. The trial court has passed the impugned order and the petitioners are in need of interim custody of the cattle for their day to day life. Hence, this petition.
3. After filing of the petition, notice was sent to the respondent. The respondent appeared through learned public prosecutor and filed objections contending that the petition is not maintainable in law and facts and liable to be dismissed. The order passed by the trial court is proper and require no interference -6- NC: 2025:KHC:24536 CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025 HC-KAR by this court. The grounds urged in the petition are baseless and sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard arguments on merits.
5. The following points arise for my consideration;
1. Whether the impugned order requires interference?
2. What order?
6. My answers to the aforesaid points are as under;
Point No. 1: In the affirmative, Point No. 2: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
7. Point No. 1: The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners have purchased the cows and oxen and the copy of the said receipt was produced before the trial court, but the learned trial judge has observed that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that they are the agriculturists and own landed property in Hosakote taluk and dismissed the application for seeking release of the cows, and oxen belonging to them. The petitioners have purchased the cows and oxen for their own use and they have no intention of committing any offence as mentioned in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act -7- NC: 2025:KHC:24536 CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025 HC-KAR and undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this court.
8. The learned public prosecutor has vehemently argued that the order of the trial court is proper and does not call for interference.
9. Considering the rival arguments and the materials on record, it can be noticed that the petitioners alleged that they are the owners of the cows and oxen as mentioned in the petition and the same is also evident from the receipt produced along with the petition. It is also clear from the order of the trial court that the petitioners have not produced any document to show that they are the agriculturist and owned the landed property nor before this court and as such the said finding of the trial court cannot be faulted with. However, the petitioners claims that they are the owners of the cows and oxen and have no intention to commit any offence. Keeping the said aspect, it is just and necessary to set aside the order of the trial court and to release the cows and oxen as mentioned in the petition to their interim custody by imposing conditions. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
10. Point No. 2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The cows and oxen are released to the interim custody of the petitioners subject to following conditions:-
-8-NC: 2025:KHC:24536 CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025 HC-KAR
1. The petitioners shall execute indemnity bond for Rs. 2.00 lakhs each along with a surety for the likesum.
2. The petitioners shall produce Live Certificate of the cows and oxen issued by the Department of Animal six months till the disposal of the case. In the event of the death of the cows or oxen naturally, they shall produce the death certificate of the same issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services of their respective district.
3. The IO shall take photographs of the said cows and oxen at the cost of the petitioners and shall draw proper panchanama before handing over the custody of the cows and oxen in the presence of two respectable people of the locality and submit the said proper panchanama, photos, CD and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act."
3. The petitioner claims to be an NGO interested in the Welfare of cattle and is before this Court alleging that release of the subject / seized cattle would be detrimental to their interest and it is necessary that the seized cattle are not released to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and on the other hand -9- NC: 2025:KHC:24536 CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025 HC-KAR seized / subject cattle are to be released in favour of the petitioner / Gau Gyan Foundation.
4. In this context, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Sessions Court has assigned cogent and valid reasons as to why the interim custody of the seized cattle has been granted in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and has adequately and carefully safeguarded and protected the interest and welfare of the seized cattle by imposing several conditions upon respondent Nos.1 to 3. Further, having regard to the material on record which indicates that while Sessions Court has directed release of the subject / seized cattle in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the Sessions Court has also imposed several safeguards in the interest and welfare of the seized cattle, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present petition that to at the instance of the petitioner, who merely claims to be an NGO interested in the welfare of the cattle.
5. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24536 CRL.P No. 6936 of 2025 HC-KAR Liberty is however reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which shall be considered, in accordance with law.
All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46