Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010122172026 2026:GAU-AS:12448 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./322/2026 HEMAPADMA GAM S/O UPENDRA NATH GAM R/O- VILL. KARPUNPULI GAON, 121 NEAR WATER PUMP, P.O. GARMUR, P.S. JORHAT, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM 2:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF BORKHOLA POLICE STATION P.S. BORKHOLA DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 3:SILCHAR GAUSHALA TRUST SITUATED AT BUDHURAIL KATHAL ROAD SILCHAR P.S. SILCHAR SADAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT MAHAVIR JAI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI, MR. N GOGOI,MR B ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 28.08.2026 Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Sections 438 and 442 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.06.2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cachar, Silchar, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner seeking custody of 15 (fifteen) numbers of cattle was rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, after obtaining a certificate from the Veterinary Doctor with regard to the fitness of the said cattle and their ability to be transported from one place to another, the petitioner, upon purchasing the said cattle from one Sahab Uddin and another transported the cattle from Doboka to Silchar. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, on 15.05.2026, the police, on receipt of information that cattle were being transported in a vehicle coming from the Haflong side, conducted Naka checking, during which the vehicle was intercepted. When the driver was asked to produce the documents relating to the transportation of the cattle, he could not produce any such documents, and the cattle were seized on 14.05.2026. 4. It was also stated in the FIR that, on the next day, i.e., on 15.05.2026, the Veterinary Doctor examined the cattle and found that the cattle were not fit to be transported to any other place, and as such, the cattle were handed over to Page No.# 3/4 Silchar Gaushala Trust, Silchar. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said cattle were purchased by the petitioner for consideration from two sellers, namely, Sahab Uddin and Khalilur Rahman, who had purchased those cattle from various sellers at the Doboka Market. The receipts to that effect have been annexed to the instant petition. 6. The learned counsel has also submitted that, before the cattle were loaded and transported, certificates from the Veterinary Doctor were obtained certifying both the fitness of the cattle and their fitness for transportation to other places. 7. The learned counsel has also placed the impugned order dated 06.06.2026, wherein it was stated that the ownership of the cattle had not been established and, as such, zimma was not granted. However, he submits that the petitioner is the owner of the said cattle, as would be evident from the documents annexed to the petition. 8. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam, however, submits that, as per the instructions of the Investigating Officer, the owner of the said cattle had not appeared before the police and, as such, zimma could not be granted. He submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted in the instant case and that the case is fixed for trial. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that any articles seized in connection with a criminal case should be given in the custody of the owner or the person from whom they were seized, as soon as possible, by the Magistrate. The same has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai versus State of Gujarat, reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283. 10. In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner had purchased the cattle Page No.# 4/4 from two sellers, namely, Sahab Uddin and Khalilur Rahman, as would be evident from the receipts annexed with the petition. The cattle were thereafter transported by loading them in a vehicle meant for transportation of livestock, and that too after obtaining a certificate from the Veterinary Doctor. It is also noticed that, in fact, 16 (sixteen) numbers of cattle were purchased by the petitioner, but since only 15 (fifteen) numbers of cattle could be loaded in the said vehicle, the same were transported after following the due procedure of law. 11. In view of the above, this Court directs the Investigating Officer to give the said 15 (fifteen) numbers of cattle in the custody of the petitioner after following due process of law, including taking photographs, obtaining a bond along with an undertaking from the petitioner that he would produce the cattle during the trial whenever required, as well as complying with all other procedures prescribed by law, without any delay. 12. This criminal revision petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant