Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Mahatab Alam @ Laddu Ansari & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (Cri.) No. 47 of 2015
Decided On : 07-04-2017
For the Petitioners: D.K. Karmakar.
For the State : Vijayant Verma, J.C. to G.P. II.
The central legal point established is that the provision for forfeiture of vehicles under Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, should not be interpreted without considering the depth of the law and should not be applied indefinitely when the accused have not been put on trial.
Headnote:
Bovine Animal Prohibition - Release of Vehicles - Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, Section 12(3) - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, which provides for the forfeiture of vehicles used in the transportation of cattle or beef in contravention of the Act. The court emphasized that the vehicle cannot be kept in custody indefinitely when the accused have not been put on trial, and the provision should not be interpreted without considering the depth of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an order refusing to release their vehicles, which were seized in connection with the transportation of bovine animals without valid documents. The lower courts had affirmed the seizure based on Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application, quashed the impugned orders, and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh order. It directed the lower court to focus on the ownership documents of the vehicles and not be swayed by Section 12(3) of the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, and the legality of the seizure of vehicles in connection with the transportation of bovine animals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision for forfeiture of vehicles should not be applied indefinitely when the accused have not been put on trial, and the lower court should focus on the ownership documents of the vehicles.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the lower court for a fresh order.
Heard Mr. D.K. Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned J.C. to G.P.II for the State.
2. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the revision application preferred against the order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 16 of 2014 refusing to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioners has been affirmed.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that only consideration has been made with respect to Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of vehicle in question and there is no bar under Section 12(3) of the said Act to confiscate the vehicle till the trial of the accused are concluded. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to an order passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2862 of 2013 (Mirza Dildar Beg and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand).
4. Learned J.C. to G.P.II for the State has supported the impugned order.
5. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted being Seraikella P.S. Case No. 01 of 2014 on the allegation that two vehicles were carrying bovine animals and no valid documents could be produced which led to a conclusion that the bovine animals were being transported far illegal trading. The petitioner no. 1 claims himself to be the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH 052-7212 whereas the petitioner no. 2 claims himself to the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH 05AV-8031. An application for release of the vehicles were jointly filed by the petitioners which however was rejected on 1.3.2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella on the ground that no documents could be produced with respect to the transportation of the bovine animals. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella the petitioners had preferred a revision application being Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2014 which however was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan on 27.11.2014 on the ground that in view of the Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, the provision being prohibitory in nature the vehicle shall be forfeited to the State Government. A similar issue had fall for consideration before this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2862 of 2013 (Mirza Dildar Beg and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand) wherein this Court had passed an order on 13.01.2014 which is reflected as under :-
"Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that under Section 12(1) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, one can be convicted which may extend to ten years and at the same time, as per sub-section (3) of Section 12, the vehicle which would be found to have been used in transportation of cattle or beef in contravention of the provision of this Act, shall be liable to be forfeited to the State Government and therefore, the vehicle can be forfeited if it is found to have been used in contravention of the provision of the Act but that can be forfeited only after the order of conviction is recorded against the petitioners.
In such situation, it would not be proper and appropriate for the Court to allow the vehicles to be kept in the custody of the police that too under the vigorous of the climate and under this situation, the vehicles seized be released in favour of the petitioners.
On perusal of the provision as contained need in Section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, I do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The said provision reads as follows :
"12. Penalty.-(1) Whoever contravenes or attemp
