SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Md. Mahtab Alam Khan son of Sachu Khan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(Cr.) No.219 of 2019
Decided on : 28-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, adv

Point of Law: 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 Vehicle shall be forfeited to State Government.

Headnote:

Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005 - Sections 4(A) and 4(B), 12(3) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Seeking direction to respondents to release commercial vehicles - Seized vehicle - Informant got secret information that animals are being taken towards Bihar via Deoghar to Bengal for the purpose of slaughtering - Superior officer and thereafter, informant along with A.S.I. and others with arm proceeded to Andheri Gadar Police Picket and with help of police personnel of Andheri Gadar Picket, they started checking vehicles intervening night three containers along with one Scorpio were seen to them coming towards Chaka. Seeing police party, aforesaid Scorpio was suddenly fleeing away towards Chakai after backing same, then informant attempt to caught said Scorpio but Scorpio was succeeded to fleeing away and thereafter three containers came there and in these containers animals were found and no documents were produced and subsequently F.I.R. and seizure list was prepared and vehicles in question were seized.

Finding of the Court:

Once the proceeding started under Sections 4(A) and 4(B) of Act, 2005, it will be deemed that confiscation has been started. On perusal of Sections 4(A) and 4(B) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005, it transpires that there is no provision of confiscation in that Sections. This Section speaks Restriction on report and Permit for report. Thus, that judgment is distinguishable in facts and circumstances of case - Detention of vehicle is of no use as it will not only lead to damage and loss of utility of vehicle but will also cause a loss of revenue to Government due to non-pilance of commercial vehicle - Impugned order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate and order passed in Criminal Revision by Additional Sessions Judge-II quashed.

Result: Writ petition (criminal) disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition (criminal) has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This writ petition (criminal) has been filed for direction upon the respondents to release the commercial vehicles (containers) bearing Registration No.NL01AA4354, Chassis No.MB1CTCHDIHPDY5418, Engine No.HDPZ116424 and Registration No.NL01AA4356, Chassis No.MB1CTCHDOHPDY5409 and Engine No.HDPZ116397.

4. The case was lodged pursuant to F.I.R. wherein on 07.03.2018 at about 22 hours, the informant got secret information that animals are being taken towards Bihar via Deoghar to Bengal for the purpose of slaughtering. The informant gave information about this to superior officer and thereafter, informant along with A.S.I. and others with arm proceeded to Andheri Gadar Police Picket and with the help of police personnel of the Andheri Gadar Picket, they started checking the vehicles and at about 2.30 a.m. of intervening night 07.08.2018 three containers along with one Scorpio were seen to them coming towards Chaka. Seeing police party, the aforesaid Scorpio bearing registration no. BR 02-4894 was suddenly fleeing away towards Chakai after backing the same, then the informant attempt to caught said Scorpio but the Scorpio was succeeded to fleeing away and thereafter three containers bearing registration no.NL01AA-43456, NL01AA-4354 and HR38Q3705 came there and in these containers animals were found and no documents were produced and subsequently F.I.R. and seizure list was prepared and the vehicles in question were seized.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no provision of confiscation under Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005. He submits that only provision is under Section 12(3) of the Act whereby it transpires that the vehicle in question can be forfeited to State Government. He submits that in view of Section 12(3) that will happen after once the trial comes to the conclusion of conviction of charged accused. He further submits that vehicles in questions are commercial and if it will be allowed to languish in the premise of Police Station, it will destroy. In terms of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. also, the case of the petitioner is fortified. To buttress his argument, he relied the case of Mirza Dildar Beg & Others reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 55. He further relied the case of Md. Reyazuddin Versus The State of Jharkhand reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 985. He further relied on Cr. Rev. No.1407 of 2016 in the case of Raju Prasad Keshri Versus The State of Jharkhand.

6. Per contra, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the State submits that the vehicles in question were seized under Sections 4(A) and 4(B) and Sections 12(i) and 12(ii) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be rejected in view of the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2503 of 2013 decided on 22.01.2018 in the case of Nawab Sher Khan Versus State of Jharkhand. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Uday Singh with analogous cases reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733 that High Court could not have directed the release of such property in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. On perusal of provision of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005, it is apparent that there is no provision of confiscation of vehicle or goods as provided under some Acts i.e. Essential Commodities Act and Forest Act. The aforesaid Acts prescribe forfeiture of vehicle particularly under Section 12(3) of Jharkhan

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            Judicial Analysis

            SupremeToday

            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top