1. By way of this criminal revision application under Section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, the following reliefs are sought by the petitioner:-
"9(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this application.
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be please to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 38 of 2020;
(C ) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay costs towards maintenance and treatment to the applicant as per the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 read with the Circular dated 03.05.2018 issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India.
(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 38 of 2020;
(E) Any other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper looking to the facts of this case may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice."
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the Vice President of one Trust named as "Vardhaman Jivdaya Parivar Charitable Trust", Mr. Raghu Sindhav received an information that one truck bearing no. GJ-13-V-8210 is in transit, whereby in an illegal manner and in utter violation of applicable laws is transporting animals from Viramgam to Surendranagar. Accordingly, the complainant and his colleagues tried to intercept the truck, but the driver of the truck did not stopped it and upon further interception, the truck was stopped at Wadhwan and on inspection has found that the top of the truck was sealed with "tadpatri" and some 27 male buffaloes aged about 1.5.- 2 years were being being transported in a very cruel and gruesome manner, as they were tied up with tight ropes and there was no space for movement, no facility of food, water and "tadpatri" was covered in such a manner that no proper air circulation was made available. On further inquiry from the driver, it was informed that animals were loaded by respondent no. 2 herein from Mr. Akram A.K.A. Iqbal Habibbhai Kureshi, of Viramgam who is indulging in such kind of activity. Since animals were transported in such a cruel manner, an FIR being C.R. No. 11211056200556 of 2020 was lodged before Surendranagar "B" Division Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 11(1) (d), 11(1) (e) and 11(1) (h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Subsequently, the Police authority made an application dated 26.09.2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadhwan to pass appropriate order to keep 27 buffaloes in Panjrapol i.e. the present petitioner named as Shri Wadhwan Mahajan Panjrapol which is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The said application was given on the premise that there is no facility to keep such live stock mudammal at the concerned Police Station and there is no facility to meet with the requirement of food, water, shelter, sanitary and other necessities of such buffaloes and as such, an order came to be passed directing to keep such buffaloes at a place of the petitioner - Shri Wadhwan Mahajan Panjrapole.
2.1. Pursuant to such order passed by the learned Magistrate, custody of the buffaloes were kept at the premise of the Panjrapole. Thereafter, on 07.10.2020, respondent no. 2 moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wadhwan seeking release of such buffaloes by way of Mudammal Application No. 26 of 2020, whereby, respondent no. 2 asserted before the learned Magistrate that he is engaged in the business of Animal Husbandry and selling of animals and has asserted his ownership right over the buffaloes by way of filing an affidavit related to sale. To this application, reply came to be filed by the petitioner and after hearing the parties to the proceedings, the learned Magistrate, was pleased to reject the application submitted by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 07.11.2020.
2.2. Against this order, the present respondent no.2 preferred Revision Application No. 38 of 2020 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar which came up for consideration before the 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, who after hearing parties to the proceedings allowed the said Revision Application vide order dated 06.02.2021 and it is this order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar is made the subject matter of present Criminal Revision Application before this Court.
3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 07.06.2021, Mr. Sajid Kariyani has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 and the hearing took place of the present proceedings. Learned Advocate Mr. Meet Shah appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that upon inspection of the vehicle in question it was categorically found that the buffaloes were tied up in such a manner that there was no room for any movement in truck. Apart from that the truck was covered with "tadpatri" in such a manner that there was hardly any air circulation and further as per the requirement of relevant rules, the buffaloes were not kept in proper condition. It has been submitted that when the interception took place of the truck, it was found that they were tied in such a fit manner that there was a scar on the legs and on account of that infection has also taken place and they were to be given immediate treatment and some four buffaloes had died on account of such a situation in which there were kept. At present there are 23 such buffaloes in living condition to which the present petitioner - Trust is taking care of. This fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Wadhwan and after taking into consideration all these materials, was pleased to reject the request of respondent no. 2 and unfortunately, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, at the revisional stage the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration such a situation of the buffaloes in which condition they were transporting and also not taken into consideration the relevant rules applicable, nor has examined any material and by cryptic order, the revision application came to be allowed and as such, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there is a gross error committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in passing the impugned order.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah has further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the relevant rules which are applicable and though specifically pointed out, the same have not been dealt with in its proper perspective at all. On the contrary, no sufficient fair opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent the case and by a brief order, by imposing some conditions, the order is passed which is under challenge before this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that under the relevant Rules which are known as Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Registration of Cattle Premises) Rules, 1978, a specific procedure is prescribed for seeking registration of the premise. This has not been examined by the court below and apart from that, the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to Rule 47, which has specifically provided that a valid certificate by a qualified veterinary surgeon is required to be obtained before transporting the animals that they are in a fit condition to travel either by rail or road and are not suffering from any infection or like disease and they have been properly vaccinated against the rinderpest or any other infectious or contagious diseases and each consignment shall accompany such valid certificate from a qualified veterinary surgeon, which undisputedly, respondent o. 2 was not holding. The said certificate will have to be in a specific form prescribed in Schedule-E. In addition to this, even for the purpose of prima facie establishing the ownership, every set of animals as per Village Form No. 15, there must be a document attached to the same and therefore, here in absence of such Village Form the ownership right which is tried to be pressed by respondent no. 2 is not appearing to be genuine. Further, by referring to certain other Rules contained under Chapter no. IV of the Transport of Animals, 1978 of it has been contended that the Rules have been prescribed as to how and in what manner such cattle were to be transported in a vehicle. By referring to Rule 51 onward, an emphasis is made on Rule 54 which prescribes adequate water arrangement, sufficient feed and fodder with adequate reserve during journey and adequate ventilation, which completely were missing at the time when the vehicle was inspected and such condition was not taken into consideration while rejecting the application for respondent no. 2. These aspects though were pointed out, the learned Sessions Judge has not dealt with the same and without assigning any cogent reasons, the revision application came to be allowed. In addition to this, learned advocate Mr. Shah has further invited attention of this Court, to Rule 96 of Rules, which is requiring of valid certificate to be procured before transporting such animals. The said Rule 96 is contained in Chapter-IX which has clearly spelt out that in absence of such certificate, the carrier shall refuse to accept the consignment for transporting. No such certificate was available either with the driver or the owner of the vehicle.
4.1. Further, learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that by transporting in such a manner, respondent no. 2 has not only violated the provisions of relevant law about cruelty to prevailing Act and Rules framed thereunder, but also has violated the Motor Vehicle Rules as well. By referring to Section 125(E) of such Motor Vehicle Rules, learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that even this has also been violated. All these issues have not been taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, the order is suffering from vice of non application of mind. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further submitted that the order so passed by the learned Magistrate was just and proper, but still the revisional proceedings have been entertained in absence of any perversity or material irregularity and as such on this count also the impugned order requires to be set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further submitted that almost in similar set of circumstances, even recently, while dealing with such eventuality in the case of Raghuram Sharma & Anr. v. C. Thulsi & Anr., rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2020, has also observed certain proposition and keeping in view such observation also, the order is unsustainable and lastly by submitting a contention from the First Information Report which is attached to page 30, it has been contended that there is a gross violation of the relevant Rules as stated above by respondent no. 2 while transporting the animals and as such, also the order deserves to be set aside.
4.2. To substantiate a further stand of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Shah has drawn attention of this Court to the communication dated 23.10.2020 reflecting on page 39 indicating the position and status of the animals which are seized and this communication is clearly indicating that how and in what manner these buffaloes of tender age ranging from 1.5 - 2 years were being transported and, therefore, this gross act on the part of respondent no. 2 could not have been overlooked while passing the impugned order.
4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that apart from quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a further prayer is also required to be considered with regard to the payment of costs over maintenance and treatment of such animals which are kept by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the competent court and for that purpose, learned advocate Mr. Shah has relied upon a Notification dated 23.05.2017 which is placed on page 45 of the petition compilation. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that these buffaloes are cattle defined under Rules of 2017 which are known as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 and thereby has contended that while transporting such kind of buffaloes, these Rules are required to be observed strictly. Rule 3 is dealing with custody of animals pending litigation which is requiring as to how and in what manner, the custody of animals, pending litigation is to be handed over. It is submitted that in view of this, the petitioner being Panjrapole, the Court has divested the custody to the petitioner since at Police Station, there was no arrangement for keeping the live stock, but simply because the custody is handed over to the petitioner, respondent no.2 cannot be allowed to be absolved from meeting with the costs factor. Rule 4 is dealing with the Cost of care and keeping of animals pending litigation. The said rule reads as under :-
"Rule 4. Cost of care and keeping of animal pending litigation.-
(1) The State Board shall within three months from the date of commencement of these rules and thereafter on the 1 st day of April, every year, specify the cost of transport, maintenance and treatment per day for every species of animal that is commonly seized in the State.
(2) The magistrate shall use the rates specified by the State Board as the minimum specified rates for transport, maintenance and treatment of the seized animals under sub-section(4) of Section 35 of the Act.
(3) In case, the animals under consideration is not on the rate sheet specified by the State Board, the magistrate shall fix the cost of transport, treatment and maintenance of the animal based on the input provided by the jurisdictional veterinary officer."
4.4. Rule 5 of Rules 2017 is also requiring some Execution of bond, which rule since relevant is reproduced hereunder :-
"Rule 5. Execution of bond.-(1) The magistrate when handing over the custody of animal to an infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala shall determine an amount which is sufficient to cover all reasonable cost incurred and anticipated to be incurred for transport, maintenance and treatment of the animal based on the input provided by the jurisdictional veterinary officer and shall direct the accused and the owner to execute a bond of the determined value with sureties within three days and if the accused and owner do not execute the bond, the animal shall be forfeited to infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala.
(2) The infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala having the custody of the animal may draw on from the bond on al fortnightly basis the actual reasonable cost incurred in caring for the animal from the date it received custody till the date of final disposal of the animal.
(3) The magistrate shall call for the accused and the owner to execute additional bond with sureties once eighty per cent. of the initial bond amount has been exhausted as cost for caring for the animal.
(4) Where a vehicle has been involved in an offence, the magistrate direct that the vehicle be held as a security.
(5) In case of offence relating to transport of animals, the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents and any other parties involved shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of animals.
(6) In cases where a body corporate owns the animal, the Chief Executive Officer, President or highest-ranking employee of the body corporate, the body corporate and the accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of the animal.
(7) In cases where the Government owns the animal, the Head of the Department and the accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of the animal.
(8) If the owner and the accused do not have the means to furnish the bond, the magistrate shall direct the local authority to undertake the costs involved and recover the same as arrears of land revenue."
4.5. By referring to Rule 8 of Rules 2017, learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that how to deal with the Status of the animals upon disposal of the litigation is also prescribed. Such Rule is reproduced hereunder and as such by referring to this provisions from Rules of 2017, published in Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary, a request is made to consider and grant the reliefs as prayed for in the present proceedings in form of prayer 9( C). The said Rule 8 reads as under :-
"8. Status of animal upon disposal of litigation.-(1) If the accused is convicted, or pleads guilty, the magistrate shall deprive him of the ownership of Weal and forfeit the seized animal to the infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or other disposition. or Gaushala already having custody for proper adoption or other disposition.
(2) If the accused is found not guilty of all charges, the seized animal shall be returned to the accused or owner of the animal and the unused portion of any bond amount executed shall be returned to the person who executed the bond. "
4.6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that even the Animal Welfare Board of India established under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has also taken care for this eventuality of maintenance of animals seized, in violation of the Act or the Rules. By referring to communication dated 03.05.2018, reflecting on page 49A, typed version, it has been submitted that the Central Government has notified Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Marketing and Care of Case Property) Rules, 2017 for the maintenance of Animals seized in violation of the Act and Rules and it is noticed that the Rules are not implemented in true letter and spirit. The rates are prescribed as to how suggested minimum rates to be paid. By referring to a chart contained in the said communication which has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Shah, if on the basis of this rate which has been suggested by the Animal Welfare Board of India, a calculation is made the amount outstanding to be paid by respondent no. 2 is Rs.8,59,250/- which is so far not paid and, therefore, respondent no. 2 is an under obligation to pay the said costs as well. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that it has been propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court that rigor of Article 21 is not only extended to human, but it is also applicable to Animals as well and, therefore, by referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., reported in (2014) 7 SCC 547, a contention is raised that such proposition ought not to have been ignored by the court below. It has further been submitted that even this Court while dealing in the case of Mahisagar Mataji Samaj Seva Trust v. State of Gujarat reported in (2011) 3 GLH 762 has held that cattle are like human beings and they possess life in them and even an animal has a right to say that its liberty cannot be deprived except in accordance with law. Such proposition is laid down in the case of Mahisagar Mataji Seva Trust (supra). In addition to this the learned advocate for the petitioner has raised few specific contentions in the petition itself and by referring to grounds (h), (i), (o), (q), (r) and (s) has submitted that keeping in view all such specific assertions, not only the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, deserves to be quashed and set aside, but as a consequence of it, the relief as sought in the petition also deserves to be granted. It has been assertively submitted that in view of the contradiction in statements of the driver as well as of Mr. Saiyed Sajat Ayubali, there is a clear impression which suggested of further cruelty being inflicted upon the animals by respondent no. 2 and these animals were certainly transported for slaughter. This fact is clearly emerging from the record and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have unnoticed the said hidden agenda of respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order. In any case, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the reasons which are assigned and the conditions which are imposed upon are not at all cogent enough to sustain the order under challenge and, therefore, the present revision application deserves to be allowed by granting the reliefs as prayed for in the application.
4.7. With a view to substantiate his stand, learned advocate Mr. Shah has pressed into service the following decisions:-
"1. In the case of Animals Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., reported in (2014) 7 SCC 547.
2. In the case of Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 227.
3. In the case of Shri Bhavnagar Panjrapole Through Manager Brijesh Himatlal Shah v. State of Gujarat & Anr., rendered in Criminal Revision Application No. 601 of 2013.
4.In the case of Smandkhan Meerakhan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2011) 3 GLH 762.
5. In the case of Raghuram Sharma & Anr., v. C. Thulsi & Anr., rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2020 (Hon'ble Supreme Court Mustakeem & Ors.) Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2002/
6. Abdulkadar Mohamad Azam Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 1635 of 2010.
7. Bhartiya Govansh Rakshan Sanvardhahan Parishad v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., rendered in Criminal Application No. 1054 of 2017 (Hon'ble Bombay High Court)."
5. As against this, Mr. Sajid Kariyaniya, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 has raised three fold contentions. Firstly, that the present criminal revision application tanamounts to be a second revision is not maintainable by virtue of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, no order be passed in the present proceedings. Apart from that learned advocate Mr. Sajid has submitted that cruelty is nothing but a mere presumption of the petitioner and there is no iota of material available on record to presume cruelty further to be executed upon the buffaloes and there is no past complaint against respondent no. 2 which would allow such presumption to be further assumed and as such, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is just and proper, the same cannot be interfered with in a revisional scope which is otherwise limited. In addition to this, a third contention which has been raised is that even Rules of 2017 which are tried to be pressed into service are at present pending for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, so long as the proceedings are pending, these Rules of 2017 cannot be said to have attain finality and as such, violation thereof, may not be of any significance. Hence, learned advocate Mr. Sajid has requested to dismiss the revision application. Apart from that it has been contended that enough opportunity is given to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the petitioner was well represented by the Manger who remained present and as such, there is hardly any substance in the submission about no appropriate opportunity was given. No other submissions are made.
6. As against this, Mr. J. K. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State has submitted that from the bare reading of the impugned order, it clearly transpires that while passing the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the relevant Rules of 2017 which are applicable and furthermore, the position in which the animals were kept and tied up and covered in the truck, were clearly suggesting that there was a definite intention of cruelty to such buffaloes in future and for that very purpose only they were being transported and such presumption is not ill founded. Additionally, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Shah has submitted that the revision is barred, provided such revision is by the very same person who filed the revision application before the Sessions court, but so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the said bar is not applicable and as such, the order appears to be not just and proper and not in consonance of the relevant object of the Rules and the material on record as well and as such, has left it to the discretion of the Court.
7. After the submission of learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2, learned advocate Mr. Shah in rejoinder has submitted that this very issue of maintainability of second revision application is dealt with by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 584 of 2020 decided on 12.03.2021 and as such, such bar of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not be applicable to the petitioner in this background of facts. This submission of learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner has been disputed by learned advocate Mr. Sajid appearing for respondent no. 2 and has submitted that apart from this, whether second revision application at the instance of the petitioner is maintainable or not, but since the petitioner was very much party to the court below, and as such also the bar contained under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted and hence has requested to dismiss the revision application. No other submissions have been made by the either side.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone the material on record and having perused the order impugned in the revision application, it prima facie appears to this Court that the contentions which have been raised by the petitioner appears to have not been dealt with and obviously, the reasons qua them are missing in the order. It has been stated by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the request which was made for seeking maintaining cost of these buffaloes, an attention was also drawn to the relevant rules which are submitted in the present proceedings, but the court below has not dealt with the same. In addition thereto, there is a certificate produced at page 39 dated 23.10.2020 is also, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner forming part of the proceedings before the court below, the learned Judge has not properly construed the same and without considering the relevant material it has been assumed that the charge sheet documents are not indicating any such possibility of cruelty to the animals which are seized and simultaneously, if this conclusion is compared with the order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Wadhwan, is clearly indicating that the panchnama was also produced on record and there was a categorical reply submitted by the panjrapole indicating the status and the infection of buffaloes and also has been stated before the Court that the four buffaloes died during the process. The learned Magistrate has also considered the earlier decisions delivered by this Court in the case of Manager, Panjrapole, Deodar v. Chakaram Moraji Nat & Anr., and Gitaben B. Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in 1997 (2) GLR 1321 and after considering the same has come to the conclusion that possibility cannot be ruled out of torture and, therefore, overall consideration of the material on record is suggesting that the order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge is not in consonance with the relevant record and Rules of 2017 which are stated to have been drawn attention, have also not been dealt with and further there is non dealing with the request of maintenance costs to be paid to the petitioner. If this be so, the ultimate reasons which has been assigned, cannot be said to be just and proper. Non dealing of the contentions of the material is also the relevant consideration for testing the decision making process.
8.1. Categorical grounds have been mentioned in the present proceedings that though the Rules have been pointed out, the learned Sessions Judge did not examined at all and relied upon the decision which is prior to framing of Rules. So the reasons assigned are perverse to the record in considered opinion of this Court.
8.2. In addition to this, contradictory statements which are pointed out before the Court also deserves consideration with respect to the ownership issue of seized buffaloes and, therefore, on material issue, it appears that no attention is paid while coming to the conclusion in handing over the buffaloes to respondent no. 2. Again the relevant material namely the statement of manager, the rates which are prescribed by the Animal Welfare Board of India as well as the relevant Rules which are framed by virtue of Notification dated 23.05.2017 also appears to have not been examined at all as to whether the same will be given due consideration or not. In addition thereto, as stated above, central issue of status of the animals which have been pointed out before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate in order dated 23.10.2020 also not been dealt with in its proper perspective. So the overall reasons which are assigned by the learned Sessions Judge are not substantiating with the material on record and as such, in the opinion of this Court, this is a fit case for remanding the matter back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for reconsideration of the issue.
8.3. Since the Court is of the opinion that the matter requires to be remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this Court has refrain itself from expressing any opinion on the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the parties to the proceedings, but the Court is of the opinion that the issue related to maintainability of second revision is not possible to be accepted of learned advocate representing respondent no. 2 It appears to this Court, that at the instance of the present petitioner, the revision application is the first revision and as such the objection contained in Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply. This view has been substantiated by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajkot Mahajan Panjrapol Through Bhaveshbhai Naranbhai Jaullu v. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Revision Application No. 584 of 2020 dated 12.03.2021 and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the objection raised by the learned counsel about the maintainability is not tenable and as such, on overall appreciation of material on record, the Court has come to the conclusion that the case is made out by the petitioner for remanding the proceedings back for fresh consideration.
9. While coming to this conclusion, the Court is of the clear opinion that the no adequate reasons are assigned nor the contentions have been dealt with and, therefore, the decision making process is not germane to the law. At this stage, while coming to the conclusion, the Court is mindful of the proposition of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kushuma Devi v. Sheopati Devi (Dead) and Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 744, in which it was observed that non consideration of submissions urged and material on record is undesirable. The relevant observations contained in para 7 and 8 are quoted hereunder :-
"7. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned because from the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 quoted above, we find that it is an unreasoned order. In other words, the High Court neither discussed the issues arising the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has dismissed the writ petition.
8. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion. (See - State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129, Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 222, State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607, Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568)."
9.1. Additionally, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mayurbhai Kantibhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat & Others reported in 2015(1) GLR 894 in para 11 though it relates to reasons about grant or refusal of the interim order, but the observations contained in para 40 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's, decision referred to in this para 11, the Court would like to reproduce hereunder :-
"11. It is well settled that while granting and/or refusing interim order, the Court has to assign briefly some reason. The Apex Court in the case of ORYX Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,2010 (13) SCC 427 observed in Para 40 as under:
"40. In M/s. Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in Para 51 of the judgment which are set out below:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
decision, making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process, then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incremental ism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the Judges and decision- makers less prone to errors, but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n) Since, the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See 1994 (19) EHRR 553 , at page 562 Para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Art. 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions, judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." 10. In view of the above, it is desirable in the interest of justice to pass the following order which would meet the ends of justice. 10.1. The impugned order dated 06.02.2021, passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 38 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside and a consequence thereof, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to reconsider the issue after dealing with the contentions of both the sides and shall pass a fresh order. Since the learned Sessions Judge to take a fresh decision, this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit with regard to any of the contentions raised in the present proceedings. It would be open for the parties to the proceedings to raise all permissible contentions before the Court below and after dealing with the same, the learned Judge shall pass a fresh order, after assigning reasons. 10.2. Since the issue relates to custody of buffaloes of tender age, looking to contentions as well as maintenance issue of those buffaloes, the learned Judge shall pass a fresh order in the interest of justice at the earliest, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present criminal revision application stands disposed of.