Full Judgment
RameshwarSingh Malik, J.
Oral:
The instant petition is directed against the impugned order dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunam, in a case arising out of FIR No. 53 dated 16.5.2010 under Sections 4-A/4-B/8(i) of the Punjab Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act registered at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur.
The above said FIR No. 53 dated 16.5.2010 was registered at the instance of the petitioner. Consequently, 25 cattle including the cows and buffaloes, were recovered by the police. Respondent No.2 is the accused, who is facing the criminal trial in the above said Criminal Misc. No. M-17250 of 2010 2 case.
During the pendency of the trial, respondent No.2 moved an application for releasing above said 25 cattle on supardari. Learned Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P-2), ordered the release of 25 cattle from the police custody in favour of respondent No. 2 on furnishing supardari bonds in the sum of Rs.2 lacs with one surety in the like amount. Further condition put was that respondent No. 2 shall not alienate the cattle without prior permission of the court and shall produce the same in the court as and when required.
Aggrieved by the above said impugned order, the petitioner- Gauraksha Dal, Rajpura, has approached this Court by filing the present petition
Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 10.6.2010, allowing the petitioner to maintain the cows at its own costs. The petitioner was further directed to deposit sufficient amount before the learned trial court to show bonafide for maintaining the cattle. This Court also directed to verify about the credibility of the petitioner. Two sets of replies have been filed. Verification report has been filed before the Court by way of affidavit of Brijinderpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Dirba, District Sangrur. Para 2 of the report dated 29.2.2012, reads as under:
“That in compliance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Court, verification regarding creditability of the petitioner Society has been got conducted through the local Police and it has been found that the petitioner Society is a registered Society and functioning at Rajpura. The main function of the Society is to protect the cows under the Prevention of Punjab Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 with the help of Police and to prevent the transportation of cows out of the State of Punjab for slaughtering. There is sufficient infrastructure for this purpose i.e. Land, sufficient staff, vehicles, Doctors and funds for feeding. It is also found that Gau Raksha Dal, Punjab has 414 Gaushalas throughout the Punjab State, out of which 350 are registered one, where they deposited the cows, so protected from such accused."
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate was patently illegal and the same was liable to be set aside in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. He further submits that the cattle are being looked after by the petitioner Society and it would be in the interest of cattle that the same are permitted to be maintained by the petitioner, during the pendency of the trial.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is further alleged that the office bearers and workers of the petitioner Society attacked respondent No.2 and his other companions by intercepting the truck, in which the cattle were being carried.
Respondent No.2 claims himself to be the absolute owner of the cattle, being the purchaser for due consideration. He further alleges that FIR No. 54 dated 16.5.2010 has been got registered against the office bearers and employees of petitioner Society under Section 304-A, 323, 341, 148, 149 IPC. Concluding his arguments, respondent No.2 submits that the present petition was liable to dismissed.
Be that as it may, let the law take its own course, so far as the FIR No. 54 dated 16.5.2010 is concerned. In the present case, the short issue involved is whether the impugned order dated 24.5.2012 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned Magistrate, in the case arising out of FIR No. 53 dated 16.5.2010, releasing the cattle on supardari in favour of respondent No.2, is sustainable in law or not?
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have gone through the record of the case.
After giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.5.2010 is not sustainable in law and the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
There is no denying the fact that respondent No.2 was carrying the cattle in question when his truck was intercepted. The FIR was got registered at the instance of the petitioner. Consequently, the cattle including the cows and buffaloes, about 25 in number, were recovered and taken in the police possession. In these circumstances, the lack of bonafide is apparent on the part of respondent No.2. Further, pursuant to the impugned order, in case respondent No.2 is allowed to take away the cattle in question out of Punjab, it would not be possible to get the cattle produced in the Court, as and when required. In a way, it would amount to put the cat as guard to keep a watch on the milk.
Keeping in view the above noted factual and legal aspect of the matter, the present one is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to secure the ends of justice. The view taken by this Court also finds support from an order dated 21.9.2007 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 32380-M of 2007 (Gauraksha Dal versus State of Punjab) and Idrishand another versus Ashok Malik and another 2006 (3) RCR (criminal) 947.
In view of the above, the inevitable conclusion is that the impugned order cannot sustain. Thus, it is set aside. It is directed that during the pendency of the trial, the cattle including the cows and buffaloes, which were ordered to be released on supardari in favour of respondent No.2, vide the impugned order dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P-2), shall continue to be in possession of and be maintained by the petitioner-Society.
Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.