HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Birendra Kumar, J.
Devendra Saini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6554/2022
Decided On : 16-08-2022
Confiscation - Rajasthan Bovine Act, 1955 - The court ordered the release of a seized vehicle used in the commission of an offence under the Act, as no proceedings for confiscation had been initiated and continued detention would be detrimental to both parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was seized in connection with an offence under the Rajasthan Bovine Act, 1955. The District Collector refused to hand over the vehicle to the petitioner, citing cruelty to bovines and lack of permit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that continued detention of the vehicle would cause damage and that no proceedings for confiscation had been initiated, leading to a direction for the vehicle's release upon verification and furnishing of a bank guarantee and sureties.
Issues: Seizure of vehicle under the Rajasthan Bovine Act, refusal to release the vehicle by the District Collector, and the potential damage from continued detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provision in the Act for confiscation of the vehicle, the lack of initiation of confiscation proceedings, and the potential damage from continued detention.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed the release of the vehicle upon verification and furnishing of a bank guarantee and sureties.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is for setting aside the order dated 30/11/2021 passed by District Collector, Bharatpur in case No. 37/2021 whereby the vehicle of the petitioner (Bolero) bearing registration No. RJ-02-GB-2420, was refused to be handed over to the petitioner.
2. The said vehicle was seized in FIR No. 310/2021 registered for offences under Section 3, 5, 6 & 8 of Rajasthan Bovine Act, 1955. The impugned order reveals that the refusal is on the ground that the bovine loaded on the vehicle were treated with cruelty and were being carried without any permit or permission from the competent authority.
3. Since no further purpose is going to served by continued detention of the said vehicle by the police, it would rather cause damage to the said vehicle, if it is not released.
4. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Rule 6A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration for Export) Act, 1995 which provides as under:-
[6A. Confiscation of the means of conveyance-(1) Whenever an offence punishable under this Act is committed, any means of conveyance used in the commission of such offence shall be liable to confiscation.
(2) Where any means of conveyance referred to in sub- section (1) is seized in connection with the commission of any offence punishable under this Act, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made by the person seizing it to the Competent Authority and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for commission of such offence, the Competent Authority, having jurisdiction over the area where the said means of conveyance was seized, may, if satisfied that the said means of conveyance was used for commission of offence under this Act, order confiscation of the said means of conveyance.
Provided that before ordering confiscation of the said means of conveyance a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the owner of the said means of conveyance and if such owner satisfies the Competent Authority that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being or likely to be committed and he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence, the Competent Authority may not confiscate the said means of conveyance:
Provided further that where such means of conveyance is owned by the Central Government or any State Government or any of their undertaking, no order of confiscation of such means of conveyance shall be passed by the Competent Authority and the matter shall be referred to the State Government by the Competent Authority for making such orders regarding means of conveyance as the State Government may deem fit; Provided also that before ordering confiscation under this sub-section, the owner of the means of conveyance referred to in sub-section (1) may be given an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price of such means of conveyance: Provided also that an owner of a means of conveyance shall not be given option under the preceding proviso, if he had been given option under that proviso at an earlier occasion ( (3) Whenever any means of conveyance as referred to in sub-section (1) is seized in connection with commission of an offence under this Act, the Competent Authority shall have, and notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or release of such means of conveyance.
(4) Where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that it is expedient in public interest or for the benefit of its owner that the means of conveyance, as referred to in sub-section (1), seized for commission of offence under this Act be sold by public auction, he may at any time direct it to be sold.
(5) Any order of confiscation made by the Competent Authority shall not prevent the infliction o
AI
The court's decision was based on the lack of initiation of confiscation proceedings for the seized vehicle under the Rajasthan Bovine Act, 1955, and the potential damage from continued detention.
The main legal point established is that practical considerations and safeguarding of interests can be balanced with the legal mandate, providing a solution that serves both parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a finding of contravention before forfeiture of a vehicle under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 20....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a finding of contravention before forfeiture of a vehicle under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 20....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005, regarding the forfeiture of a vehicle to ....
Release of Vehicle - Beef slaughter - Transportation of Cattle or Beef - Whenever a vehicle is found to have been used in transportation of Cattle or Beef contravening any provision of this Act Vehic....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the forfeiture of vehicles under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005 can only occur after a trial concludes and ....
The Act does not provide for confiscation of the vehicle, and forfeiture can only occur after a trial concludes with a conviction. The commercial nature of the vehicle and relevant legal provisions a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.