Full Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure, J.
1. The learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice of the petition. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order rejecting their application, for interim custody of 17 He-Buffaloes seized by Ullal Police for contravention of the provisions of Rules 2, 5 and 6 of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1966 and Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The facts relevant for the purpose of these revisions are as under:
It is on 6-12-2008 in the morning at about 4.30 a.m. when the CPI Mangalore Rural was on patrolling duty near Naganakatte Village found that the petitioners were transporting 17 He-buffaloes in a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19 B-7959 and for the commission of the above said offences, the lorry and the He-buffaloes were seized. One Mohammed Mustafa applied for the release of the lorry and vide order dated 23-12-2008, the interim custody of the vehicle was entrusted to him. So also, the petitioners filed application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 stating that they have purchased the 17 He-buffaloes from Hassan Market for the purpose of doing agricultural operations in Kerala and that they were transporting the same in the lorry on the date of the incident. After the seizure of the He-buffaloes, a requisition was sent and after the filing of the application for interim custody, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed his objections contending that there is no purchase of the He-buffaloes and that the petitioners have not produced any receipts regarding the purchase and also submitted that the He-buffaloes are necessary during the trial for identification. The Trial Court after hearing the Counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Public Prosecutor has passed the interim order rejecting the application and aggrieved by the same, this revision has been preferred.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the High Court Government Pleader.
5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions for the interim release of the He-buffaloes and that he has purchased the buffaloes in the market by paying the prices and further claims that much injustice will be caused if interim custody is not granted. The learned High Court Government Pleader has supported the order of the Court below.
6. It is relevant to note that the petitioners are not the parties to the proceedings before the Trial Court and the application came to be filed on the ground that the petitioners are the owners of the He-buffaloes and the copy of the application was neither served upon the accused nor their Counsel and the impugned order is without notice to the accused. Whenever any application is filed for interim custody of any property, it is necessary for the Court to give notice of the application to the State which is the complainant and also the accused from whose custody the property was seized and after hearing the respective parties, appropriate orders have to be passed. Though the Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court in Babu v. State of Karnataka Cri. R.P. No. 1375 of 2008, DD. 13-1-2009, the question of principles of natural justice was not raised in the said case and in these circumstances, the interim custody was entrusted. In the peculiar circumstances of this case as the copy of the application was not served to the accused, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is illegal and it has to be set aside by remitting back the matter to the Court below to pass appropriate orders after giving notice to the accused. In that view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 23-12-2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below for passing appropriate orders in the light of the observations made and after notice to the parties. Considering the fact that the He-buffaloes were seized in the year 2008, the Court below is directed to dispose of the application within a month after service of the notice to the accused. The revision petitions are accordingly allowed.
7. Misc. Criminal Petition No. 492 of 2009 in Cri. R. P. No. 131 of 2009 filed for dispensation of the certified copy of the order dated 23-12-2008 does not survive in view of the fact that the copy of the order has been produced in the connected petition and hence, the same is accordingly disposed of.