Dismissed¶29

Arvind Saini S/O Shri Birbal Saini v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC8 May 2026CRLMP/4917/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; CRLMP 4917/2018; Arvind Saini v. State of Rajasthan; Ganesh Ram Meena, J.; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 11(1)(d) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960; seizure of sheep and buffaloes from truck; release of livestock refused; ownership not proved; receipt dated 12.06.2018 Bakra Mandi Sikar; slaughterhouse purpose; PS Udaipurwati District Jhunhunu; order dated 30.06.2018 ACJM Udaipurwati upheld; revision dismissed 16.07.2018 District and Sessions Judge Jhunjhnu; petition dismissed 08.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

The receipt dated 12.06.2018 relied upon by the petitioner does not disclose from which individuals the livestock was purchased. ¶26

Arvind Saini S/O Shri Birbal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:21042]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4917/2018

¶4

Arvind Saini S/o Shri Birbal Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dhani Boharwali Village Narsingh Puri, District Sikar.

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through PP, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit kUmar Gupta, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

08/05/2026

¶13

The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner (for short, ' the petitioner') under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') against the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Jhunjhnu(Raj.), (for short ‘the Revisional Court’) whereby the revision petition filed by him was dismissed and the order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhnu, (for short ‘ the Trial Court’), was upheld.

¶14

The facts of the case in brief are that on 12.06.2018, an FIR was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Udaipurwati, District Jhunhunu, for an offence under Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, wherein the police recovered livestock

[2026:RJ-JP:21042]

[CRLMP-4917/2018]

(2 of 3)

(sheep and buffaloes) from a truck, which was being driven by the petitioner.

¶19

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for releasing the livestock before the Trial Court, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2018. Against the said order, a revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2018.

¶20

No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On 30.10.2025, when the case was called for hearing, no one appeared for the petitioner and the Court in the interest of justice, allowed one more opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter and made it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted. Hence, this petition is being decided on merits.

¶21

The petitioner in the petition submits that he was the sole owner of the livestock and a receipt dated 12.06.2018 had been produced by him showing purchase of the livestock from the Bakra Mandi, Sikar, however, the same was not considered while passing the impugned order. 5. Considered the averments made in petition and the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material made available on record.

¶22

Looking to the facts on record, it is found that the registered owner and the owner mentioned in the agreement of the truck in question, are different and neither of them have been presented before the Courts below.

[CRLMP-4917/2018]

[2026:RJ-JP:21042]

(3 of 3)

The Court has perused the receipt dated 12.06.2018, however, the same does not disclose the fact that from which individuals the livestock was purchased. Meaning thereby, neither there is any authentic proof on record of the petitioner's ownership of the said livestock, nor there is any evidence as to by what authority, an application for releasing the livestock was filed by the petitioner.

¶27

As per the evidence appraised by the Courts below, it is clear that the animals were stuffed to the brim in the truck when they were recovered by the police. Thus, based on the said manner of transportation, it cannot be ruled out that the intended purpose of taking the livestock was to take them to a slaughterhouse.

¶28

Having gone through the orders passed by the learned Courts below, and also taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined towards interfering in the impugned order.

¶29

Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby, dismissed.

¶30

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶31

ARTI SHARMA/18

Arvind Saini S/O Shri Birbal Saini v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Saini S/O Shri Birbal Saini v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Damodar and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Smt Neelam W/O Shri Bhagwan Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Rahul Kumar S/O Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lal Bhadur Yadav and Ors. Vs Rahul Yadav