Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jagatguru Sant Tukaram Goshala vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 January, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.132 /2022
IN
[@ SLP [CRL.] NO.9894/2017]
JAGATGURU SANT TUKARAM GOSHALA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for parties. The dispute pertains to the seizure of 18 cattles by the Bhartiya Vidyapeeth police station for offence punishable under Sections 5,6,9 and 11 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, Section 11 (a)(d)(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, Section 192(66) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Section 83 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1989.
The cattles were seized and handed over to the appellant- Goshala for protection and preservation. An Signature Not Verifiedapplication was filed for release of the cattles which was Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur allowed and the appeal preferred against the same was not Date: 2022.01.29 13:12:35 IST Reason: entertained. On the other hand, in terms of the impugned judgment dated 24.07.2017, on account of the fact that 2 five cattles had in the meantime passed away, a direction was passed to hand over the cattles to respondent No.2 and the Goshala was directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to Respondent No.2.
In the given conspectus of the fact of the case, we are not inclined to sustain the order. We may notice an important aspect, which is the passage of time. The cattles were seized on 24.07.2012, and almost a decade has passed. Most of the cattles would have broadly lived their life of commercial utility. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they are willing to take care of the cattles which are alive without claiming any compensation from the respondent No.2 about the same. We take the said statement on record.
With no commercial utility, we see no purpose in handing over the cattles back to respondent No.2, at this stage of time. The appellant was only handed over the cattles by the State. If respondent No.2 is of the view that they are entitled to some compensation for seizure of cattles from the State, it is for them to work out their remedies in accordance with law. We may, however, note the submission of learned counsel for the State that there are more than 10 similar cases pending against the respondent No.2.
3We close the present proceedings in the aforesaid terms.
The appeal is allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs.
……………………………………………..J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ……………………………………………..J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 25, 2022.
4
ITEM NO.4 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9894/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-07-2017 in CRLA No. 1206/2014 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) JAGATGURU SANT TUKARAM GOSHALA Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 128600/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT Date : 25-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. Vishrov Mukerjee, Adv. Ms. Kiran Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv.
Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application stands disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [Signed order is placed on the file]