Musthafa Edavettan Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7415 OF 2o2s

¶7

Between:

¶8

Musthafa Eda\ettan, S/o Abdtdla Aged about 54 Years, Occ. Business Ri/o.H.No. 258/AF Murugadevanna Street Agrahra Mysore, Karnataka State 570004 N/o. Permanent Address Edavattan House Chundamuk, Ellumandam PO Edavaka, Wayanad, Kerala 670 645

¶9

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records for the Docket Order in Crl.M.P.No.545 of 2025 in Crime M. 16'l of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rama Reddy District, dated 30-042025 al Rajendranagar and Quash the same against the Petitioner.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Sectbn 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated ifl the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim custody of Vehicle bearing No. KA 55 A 0938 to Petitioner seized in Crime No. 161 of 2025 registered at Police Station, Shamshabad pending disposal of Criminal Petition.

¶16

This Petition com'tng on for hearing, upon^perusing the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R GOPI MOHAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public^{Prosecutor on} behalf of the Respondent.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

t Ii r I { I i

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7415 OF 2025

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528^of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023^(for shon:^{'the BNSS')} challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.545 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

¶23

I have heard Mr. R.Gopi Mohan, learned corlnsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representi ng the respondent-State.

¶24

The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the^petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration number KA55A0938. A criminal case was initiated under Se(ltion 11 read with Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Anim,als Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PCA Acf ) on the allegation that the petitioner's vehicle was used for the unlawful transportation of cattle. Consequently, the police seized the said^{vehicle. The} petitioner subsequently filed an application before the trial court under Section 503 of the BNSS seeking interim custody of the

¶25

2

¶26

NTR-J cetP_7415 m25

¶27

vehicle. Upon consideration of the material on record, the trial court alloued the applir Assrieved bv rhe narure o*he conditionsT":"::'::'omrlv tmposed' the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶28

learned counsel for ttre petitioner contends that the condition imposed by the triar court-requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,2O0l- bwards transportation costs and Rs.2O0l_ per catue per day from the date of seizure untir the date of the order, for a total of 36 catfle is unduly burdensome and has caused significant financial distress. lt is further sub r mitted that the caftle have already been so' ; ^l ^ .":"'"r '^{and assuch'} holding the petitioner liable for ongoing ,"int"nt an@ @sts is irnproper. Accordingly, counsel prays for the setting aside of the conditio '"'"t,nn^{to dairy} 5. maintenance charges imposed by thetriar "orJ On the other hand, the learned Additional public prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that under the prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance < case property Animars) Rures, 2016 (the pcA Rures,), t" o*] ner of the vehicle is statutorily obligated to bear the expenses incurred for the transportation, rnedical anima,s during rhe,.,.::il;.::il:i:, " the seized !--..vo- rt rs argued that the

¶29

!--..-

¶30

I

¶31

NTR.J cRrP_74^r 5-2025

¶32

3

¶33

amount fixed at Rs.200/-^per animal^{per day} is^{rr:asonableand} consistent with statutory mandates. Therefore, the^prosecution prays for the dismissal of the petition.

¶34

I have^perused the materials on record.

¶35

1

¶36

Rule 4 of the PCA Rules specifies that the daily costs for transport, maintenance, and treatment of commonly seized animal species. Magistrates must adopt these rates as the minimum standards for cost determination under section 35(4) of the Act. For animal species not listed, the magistrate will determine costs based on the^{jurisdictional} veterinary officer's input.

¶37

Upon careful consideration of the statutory^provisions, it is evident that the direction issued by the learned Magistrate requiring the deposit of funds and specifying the amount to be allocated for the daily maintenance and medical care of the cattle is in strict conformity with the stipulations set forth in the relevant rules. The Magistrate's determination of a daily maintenance and medication cost of Rs.200/- per cattle is further found to be reasonable, particularly in the absence of any substantive evidence or r,raterial to suggest that such an amount is excessive or unduly burdensome.

¶38

4

¶39

NTR,J cRrP_7{rs 2025

¶40

ln light of the prevailing circumstances and the necessity of ensuring the weHare and proper upkeep of the catfle throughout the pendency of the proceedings, this Court is of ttre considered view that the prescribed rate of Rs.200/_ per catfle per day is not unreasonable. No valid or {enable grounds have been presented that would warrant interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the order of the learned Magistrate is upheld. 10. Resultanfly, in the absence of merit, this petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismrssed.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶42

closed.

¶43

\

¶44

sd/.Sm^{t. A. PRATHTMA} D PUTY^REGISTRAR

/ITRUE^COPY,,

ECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 The Xl^{Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Raiendranagar' Cyberabad'} 2 The Station^{HouseOf{icer' Shamshabad Police Stat'rcn'} 3 one CC^{to SRl. R GOPI MOHANAdvocate [OPUC]} 4 Two CCs^{to Sri- Publ'rc Prosecutor'HighCourt fror the State of Telangana} tourl

¶49