Judgment :-

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 2755 of 2012 whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein.

3) Brief facts:

a) The vehicle of the appellant, Eicher Truck, was seized by the police, which was found to be transporting 28 buffalo calves. The First Information Report (in short “FIR”) was registered against the appellant on 02.08.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”), Sections 184, 177 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “M.V. Act”), Sections 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Principal Act”) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

b) The appellant filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 9 of 2012 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) for the release of his Eicher truck before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Vide order dated 24.08.2012, the Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 6B(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Amendment Act”), the vehicle shall not be released before the expiry of six months from the date of its seizure.

c) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an application being Criminal Revision Application No. 73 of 2012 before the District & Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, which was also rejected on 01.09.2012

d) Dissatisfied with the order of the District & Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, the appellant preferred Special Criminal Application No. 2755 of 2012 before the High Court. By impugned order dated 25.09.2012, the High Court dismissed the said application.

e) Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave.

4) Heard Mr. O.P. Bhadani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shomik Sanjanwala, learned counsel for the respondents.

5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Courts below are justified in rejecting the prayer of the appellant as per the provisions of the amended Act?

6) The Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (in short “the Bombay Act”), which was enacted for the preservation of animals suitable for milch, breeding or for agricultural purposes was made applicable to the State of Gujarat. The following provisions of the said Act are relevant for the case in hand:

“Section 5 - Prohibition against slaughter without certificate from Competent Authority. (1) Notwithstanding any law for the time being in force or any usage to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered any animal unless, he has obtained in respect of such animal a certificate in writing from the Competent Authority appointed for the area that the animal is fit for slaughter. (1A) No certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in respect of—

(a) a cow;

(b) the calf of a cow, whether male or female and if male, whether castrated or not;

(c) a bull;

(d) a bullock;

(2) In respect of an animal to which sub-section (IA) does not apply, no certificate shall be granted under sub-section (1) if in the opinion of the Competent Authority-

(a) the animal, whether male or female, is useful or likely to become useful for the purpose of draught or any kind of agricultural operations;

(b) the animal if male, is useful or likely to become useful for the purpose of breeding;

(c) the animal, if female, is useful or likely to become useful for the purpose of giving milk or bearing offspring.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to—

(a) the slaughter of any of the following animals for such bona fide religious purposes, as may be prescribed, namely :--

(i) any animal above the age of fifteen years other than a