- (1.) Heard Sir Mohit Bihari Mathur, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 20.2.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rampur in Case Crime No. 451 of 2015 (State Vs. Yakib) under Section 3/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act (in short "the Act") and 3/11 Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur.
(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that offence under Section 3/8 of the Act and 3/11 Animal Cruelty Act are not attracted in the present matter. Court below illegally rejected the release application. Learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Mustakeem and others,2002 Supp ACC 272 Supreme Court. It was further argued that in-fact both the bullocks were being carried for agricultural purposes. Documentary evidence to show the ownership of bullocks was also furnished before the court below but the release application was illegally rejected. A Revision was filed which was allowed by the revisional court setting aside the order passed by the concerned Magistrate directing to pass afresh order. Concerned Magistrate instead of releasing the bullocks rejected the release application again. It was further argued that offence under Section 3/8 of the Act is not attracted in the present matter as carrying of the bullocks from one place to another in the State of Uttar Pradesh is not punishable. It was further argued that no instrument of slaughtering was recovered from the possession of person carrying bullocks. Opinion formed by the police concerned is not supported from any evidence. Order passed by the concerned Magistrate is not only illegal but also arbitrary and against the judicial norm.;