Point of Law : Without recording such satisfaction, it cannot be said that the impugned order so passed by the learned Court below, withstand test of legality, propriety and correctness.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. L. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondents.

2. In this petition, under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the order, dated 13.06.2022, so passed by the learned JMFC, Biswanath Chariali in petition No. 476/2022 in connection with Sootea P.S. Case No. 35/2022. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking custody of 22 Nos. of cattle, which were seized in connection with the aforementioned case.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under :-

“On 23.04.2022, S.I. Shyamal Jyoti Saikia lodged one F.I.R. to the OfficerIn-Charge, Sootea P.S., to the effect that on 22.04.2022, at about 11.30 P.M., one Truck bearing Registration No. AS-01-LC-1486 was apprehended with 2 persons namely, Md. Abu Alom & Md. Ashiqul Rahman, while they were carrying 21 Nos. of cattle illegally from Silapathar towards Nagaon District. And they failed to produce valid documents of the said cattle and as such, it is suspected that the bullocks were stolen and carried illegally and they also could not show any permit for transporting the cattle. Also, it is stated that one cattle was found dead inside the Truck and the cattle were carried in cruel manner in the vehicle without sufficient space. Upon the said F.I.R., Sootea P.S. Case No. 35/22, under Section 379/411/429/34 IPC, read with Section 13(1) of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, read with Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was registered and S.I. Bhaskar Jyoti Saikia was endorsed to investigate the same. During investigation, the I/O has seized 21 Nos. of bullock and also seized cash, Rs. 31,580/-. Thereafter, the I/O has arrested Md. Abu Alom & Md. Ashiqul Rahman and forwarded them to the Court and seized the cattle, preparing seizure-list and handed over the cattle to Trinayan Goushala on 24.04.2022, for maintenance, the I.O. also seized the Truck, bearing Registration No. AS-01-LC-1486. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred one petition, being petition No. 476/22 before the Court of learned JMFC, Biswanath Chariali and then after hearing both the parties, the learned Court below vide impugned order 13.06.2022, has dismissed the petition”.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on the grounds that :-

(i) The learned Court below erred in law and also in fact by rejecting the petition No. 476/22 vide impugned order dated 13.06.2022, without applying its judicial mind and also without taking into consideration that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the said cattle.

(ii) That the Court below has dismissed the petition by quoting Section 11(5) of the Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, stating that “when the aforesaid Section specifically provides that cattle seized cannot be released, the zimma petition cannot be allowed, and thereafter rejected the same.

(iii) And that, in the said Section the word “MAY” is used and as such, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the aforesaid provision of law in its proper perspective.

(iv) And that, Section 7(6)(i) & (ii) of the Act, provides no permission shall be required for carrying cattle to grazing field or for agricultural or animal husbandry purposes within the State and to and from registered Animal Market for the purpose of sale and purchase of such cattle within the State cattle shall not be transported in a district without valid permit which shares international border with any foreign country. In this present case neither Dhemaji district nor Nagaon district share international border with any foreign country. And as such, the impugned order is bad in law.

(v) And that, in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Pinjo