Revision petition seeking quashing of an order directing retained oxes in Gaushala pending trial. Court held the order was sustainable as petitioners lacked permit to export oxes.
Revision petition dismissed; order directing oxes to remain in Gaushala retained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18925 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18925 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2010
Bhajan Lal and others
Versus
Krishan and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 18th May, 2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby order dated 7th May, 2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, granting Superdari of oxes to the petitioners was reversed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that order passed by the Sessions Judge is totally unsustainable. According to learned counsel, since the accused had been booked only under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and not under (Punjab) Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, they are entitled to have the oxes on Superdari. According to him, Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in directing that the oxes be retained in the Gaushala during pendency of trial.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
Crl. Misc. No. M-18925 of 2010 2
A perusal of the order passed by Sessions Judge shows that he came to a prima facie conclusion that accused was taking the oxes to Delhi without any licence or permit and same would amount to violation of (Punjab) Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. In view of this, he felt that the oxes recovered from the petitioners could not be handed over to the accused. He also took note of Section 23 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any legal infirmity with the impugned order. I am, thus, of the considered view that the order directing the oxes to be retained in Gaushala on furnishing of surety, is totally sustainable. A perusal of the order shows that the petitioners have been permitted to take the oxes on Superdari in case they produce permit from the competent authority to export the oxes outside State of Haryana. However, in the absence of such permit, oxes have been ordered to be retained in Gaushala during the pendency of trial. I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by court below.
The revision petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
9.7.2010 'rajpal'
To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene in the Sessions Judge's decision to retain oxes in Gaushala pending trial due to lack of export permit.
Whether the reversal of the order granting Superdari of oxes is legally sustainable.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhajan Lal and others
Krishan and another
RAJAN GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
