Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Malaiarasan Vs. Sub Inspector of Police Devakottai Taluk Police Station

Malaiarasan vs Sub Inspector of Police Devakottai Taluk Police Station

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jun 07, 2016
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190717

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.R.L.RC(MD) No. 323 of 2016
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Malaiarasan

Respondent

Sub Inspector of Police Devakottai Taluk Police Station

Excerpt

.....on record. 8. maiming, injuring, ill-treating, harassing human being is serious. but, more serious is such ill-treatment to cattle and animals. but, it would be very serious, if they were bundled in a vehicle and taken to slaughter-houses. 9. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that generally the rural people take more care for the health and well being bull race oxen. we have no hesitation they will take care of the oxen. 10. ordered as under: i. this criminal revision is allowed. ii. the order, dated 01.04.2016, passed in cr.m.p.no.964 of 2016, by the learned judicial magistrate, devakottai, is modified to the effect that interim custody of the two oxen shall be given to the revision petitioner. iii. the revision petitioner will execute a personal bond for rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the said magistrate. iv. the said oxen shall be photographed, the signature of the revision petitioner shall be obtained and they shall be kept in the case records. v. the revision petitioner shall give an undertaking to the said magistrate that he will take care of the oxen, feed them properly and he will not harass or ill-treat them. vi. until final order is passed by the said magistrate, the revision petitioner shall keep the oxen in his custody. vii. as and when so ordered by the court, the revision petitioner shall produce the oxen.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, in Cr.M.P.No.964 of 2016 in Crime No.54 of 2016, dated 01.04.2016 in so far as refusing to handover the two oxen to the petitioner herein.)

1. In this revision, partial allowing of a property return petition is being challenged by the property owner.

2. In this part of the State, more particularly in Sivagangai District, Bull Race has become famous. It has also become famous for various legal battles that went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Now, life of two oxen are involved in this case. Devakottai Taluk Police registered the case against the revision petitioner also as he is alleged to have inhumanly treated and harassed the oxen. As part of investigation, the Rekla Race Cart and two oxen were seized.

3. The revision petitioner moved the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, filing Cr.M.P.No.964 of 2016 for return of case properties to him.

4. The learned Magistrate, by his Order dated 01.04.2016, ordered interim custody of the Cart alone and refused interim custody of the oxen.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there is no allegation that the oxen were taken for meat purpose. They were not inhumanly treated. The petitioner undertakes to take care of them.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the accused have inhumanly treated the animals. They are voiceless-being.

7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and also gone through the materials on record.

8. Maiming, injuring, ill-treating, harassing human being is serious. But, more serious is such ill-treatment to cattle and animals. But, it would be very serious, if they were bundled in a vehicle and taken to slaughter-houses.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that generally the rural people take more care for the health and well being bull race oxen. We have no hesitation they will take care of the oxen.

10. Ordered as under:

i. This criminal revision is allowed.

ii. The Order, dated 01.04.2016, passed in Cr.M.P.No.964 of 2016, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, is modified to the effect that interim custody of the two oxen shall be given to the revision petitioner.

iii. The revision petitioner will execute a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate.

iv. The said oxen shall be photographed, the signature of the revision petitioner shall be obtained and they shall be kept in the case records.

v. The revision petitioner shall give an undertaking to the said Magistrate that he will take care of the oxen, feed them properly and he will not harass or ill-treat them.

vi. Until final order is passed by the said Magistrate, the revision petitioner shall keep the oxen in his custody.

vii. As and when so ordered by the Court, the revision petitioner shall produce the oxen.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial