Orissa High Court
Raju @ Jala Raju @ J. Raj vs State Of Orissa …. Opposite Party on 11 August, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.491 of 2025
Raju @ Jala Raju @ J. Raj .... Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Dash, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
11.08.2025
Order I.A. No.733 of 2025
No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant petition is filed seeking condonation of delay in
presenting the revision beyond the stipulated period in terms of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. A delay of 304 days is reported as per the SR.
4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that for the reason stated, the revision could not be filed in time
and that apart, it is for modification of the conditions imposed
by the learned court below, while considering the release of the
seizure vehicle in favour of the petitioner dealing with an
application Section 457 Cr.P.C.
5. Recorded the objection of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for
the State.
Page 1 of 6
6. Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and
submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and
even though the delay has taken place in filing of the revision,
accepting the explanation offered towards such delay, the Court
is inclined to condone the same in the interest of justice.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. Consequently, the IA is allowed with the delay being
condoned.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
CRLREV No.491 of 2025
1. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned decision by order dated 6th July, 2024 passed in
connection with Criminal Misc. Case No.13 of 2024 by the
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Begunia
arising out of G.R. Case No.32 of 2024, whereby, an
application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim release
and custody of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-
07-UN-2565 in his favour has been allowed but subject to a
deposit towards cost etc. and other conditions.
3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question
allegedly seized in connection with the case pending in the file
of learned court below corresponding to Begunia P.S. Case
Page 2 of 6
No.33 of 2024 registered under Sections 379 and 411 read with
34 IPC and Sections 11(1), 11(a)(d) of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (shortly as ‘the PCA Act‘). It is
further submitted that the petitioner is having no other source of
income and hence, the seizure vehicle should been released in
his favour without imposing any such condition directing him
to deposit an amount of Rs.16,26,800/- payable to Dhyan
Foundation, Bologarh towards expenditure, cost etc. vis-à-vis
maintenance of the cattle left in their zima. The further
submission is that the valuation of the vehicle in question as per
the ARTO is Rs.16 lac and hence, any such payment of cost by
the petitioner is hugely disproportionate and hence, the said
condition should be dispensed with directing its release in his
favour with the fulfillment of other conditions and to that
extent, the impugned order dated 6th July, 2024 at Annexure-1
is required to be modified.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State
submits that the expenditure already incurred and to be borne
by the Foundation is required to be deposited by the petitioner
in view of Rule 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care
and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and hence, it has been so
directed by the learned court below for the petitioner to make
deposit in terms thereof. In support of such contention, Mr.
Ray, learned AGA cited a decision of this Court in Jiba Bikash
Parisad Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2021(II) OLR 1016,
wherein, it has been held that the provisions of the PCA Act
and Rules framed thereunder are mandatorily to be followed at
Page 3 of 6
the time while considering interim release of the vehicles
involved in illicitly transporting the cattle.
5. In fact, as per Rule 4 of the Rules and sub-rule (2)
thereof, the Magistrate shall consider the rate specified by the
Animal Welfare Board or the District Magistrate as the case
may be for transport, maintenance and treatment of the seized
animals while directing its deposit in terms of Section 35(4) of
the PCA Act. The rates specified by the Animals Welfare
Board of India have been reproduced by the this Court in Jiba
Bikash Parisad (supra) and according to Mr. Ray, learned
AGA, it has been duly followed while directing the petitioner
to deposit the cost towards maintenance, transport, etc. in
respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the Foundation. A
calculation has been reached at by the learned court below
accordingly and at last, an amount of Rs.16,26,800/- has been
directed to be deposited by the petitioner to the concerned
Foundation. While considering the application for release under
Section 457 Cr.P.C. the learned court below has imposed such
other conditions to be complied with by the petitioner besides
deposit of the cost. But, considering the report of the ARTO
regarding the valuation of the seized vehicle stands at Rs.16 lac
and the deposit having been directed is for an amount of
Rs.16,26,800/-, the predicament of the petitioner and his
inability to comply such a condition as against the valuation of
the vehicle in question, the Court is of the humble that in view
of Rule 4 of the Rules and provisions of the PCA Act, he
cannot avoid making any such payment towards maintenance
and other cost in respect of the cattle lying in the custody of the
Foundation but at the same time, to direct the petitioner to
Page 4 of 6
make a onetime deposit for an amount of Rs.16.26,800/- would
not be appropriate. Hence, the Court is inclined to direct the
learned court below to consider interim release and custody of
the seizure vehicle subject to deposit of Rs.2 lac by the
petitioner and thereafter, to go for recovery of the balance in
instalments. In the considered view of the Court, any such
direction to pay the entire amount in lump sum without
releasing the vehicle is certainly to cause immense,
inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner and he should
therefore be allowed to take interim custody of the same and
simultaneously, to pay back and the clear outstanding balance
in instalments with an initial deposit of Rs.2 lac as such a
course of action would instead serve the purpose and meet the
ends of justice. Such is the view of the Court also for the reason
that the vehicle in question is lying in the custody of the local
police exposed to sun and rain and it is no profitable either as
its conditions is likely to deteriorate being exposed to the
vagaries of the climatic conditions. In other words, it is a fit
case, where, the above direction is necessary for compliance by
the petitioner while receiving the interim custody of the seizure
vehicle.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with a
direction to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-
J.M.F.C., Begunia to allow interim release and custody of the
seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-07-UN-2565 in
favour of the petitioner subject to verification of its ownership
and deposit of Rs.2 lac in the name of the concerned
Page 5 of 6
Foundation with an undertaking regarding payment of the
balance of the cost in instalments. As a necessary corollary, the
impugned order dated 6th July, 2024 in Criminal Misc. Case
No.13 of 2024 as at Annexure-1 is modified to the extent as
aforesaid.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CTC
Date: 13-Aug-2025 16:17:05
Page 6 of 6