1917.24crwp (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 39 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1917 OF 2024 NASEEM NOOR MOHAMMAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ….. Mr Mohd. Amir, Advocate h/f Mr H. P. Randhir, Advocate for Petitioner Mr G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1/State Mr Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 06 OCTOBER 2025 P. C. : 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 13/09/2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No.55/2024, under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby upholding the order dated 07/08/2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.5), Dhule in Criminal Misc. Application No.537/2024 under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, rejecting prayer of petitioner for seeking custody of baby she-buffaloes, which were seized. 2. According to the petitioner, Crime No.150/2024 came to be registered against him with Songir Police Station, Taluka and Dist. 2025:BHC-AUG:27936 1917.24crwp (2) Dhule for offence punishable under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, wherein it is alleged that petitioner was transporting 53 baby she-buffaloes in illegal manner. 3. After the registration of offence the said 53 baby she- buffaloes came to be handed over to respondent No.2/ Navkar Go- shala, Malegaon Road, Dhule for their day to day care. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.537/2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule for returning his seized property i.e. 53 baby she- buffaloes. Learned J.M.F.C., vide his order dated 07/08/2024 observed that the petitioner has not filed a valid certificate by a qualified veterinary surgeon to the effect that the seized cattles are in a fit condition to travel as contemplated under Section 47(a) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. The petitioner has not filed a valid permit for cattle business on record. The said cattles were found to be transporting in an illegal manner, thereby violating provisions of Section 56 (c) of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. The affidavit filed by respondent No.2/Navakar Go-shala discloses that various cattles were injured. As such, application of the petitioner was rejected. 1917.24crwp (3) 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application before the learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court observed in pursuance of amendment introduced under proviso to Section 8 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, which reads thus :- “Provided that pending trial, seized cow, bull or bullock shall be handed over to the nearest Gosadan, Goshala, Panjrapole, Hinsa Nivaran Sangh or such other Animal Welfare Organizations willing to accept such custody and the accused shall be liable to pay for their maintenance for the period they remain in custody with any of the said institutions or organizations as per the order fo the Court.” 5. Learned Sessions Judge, however, observed that whether the animals were transported for purpose of slaughtering or for the dairy-farm is a question to be ascertained by leading proper evidence. He also observed that under the provisions of Sections 5(A), 5(B), 5(C) and 5(D) of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, it is desirable that the trial in cases involving cruelty to animals are to be concluded within a period of six months. Section 8 of the said Act also prescribes that pending trial, seized cow, bull or bullock shall be handed over to the nearest Animal Welfare Organizations and accordingly, he dismissed the revision. 1917.24crwp (4) 6. I have gone through the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the learned Sessions Judge. The said orders are just and proper and requires no interference. Since it is not the case of the petitioner that seized cattles are not properly maintained, no case for releasing them or handed over them to the petitioner is made out. Since the trial is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule, in view of the mandate of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, it can be directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months. 7. Hence, the present writ petition is rejected. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule is directed to conclude the trial pending with him within a period of six months. In case, the trial is not concluded within stipulated period, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] sjk