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 the State Government, and the application of relevant legal principles related to the custody and disposal of seized property.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.02.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Rev. No.164/2019 arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.368/2018 corresponding to G.R. No.2168/2018 whereby the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih has been pleased to dismiss the criminal revision filed by the petitioner and the order dated 21.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih has been affirmed.

3. The story of the prosecution is that an information provided by the SDPO, Bagodar that he he intercepted 8 containers near Gandhi Chowk, Dhanwar loaded with bovine animals to the tune of 267, from the spot 8 persons were arrested disclosed their name and also disclosed the name of other accused persons who were involved in the transportation of bovine animals for the purpose of slaughter. It was further alleged that the animals were cruelly stacked in the overcrowded containers and as a result at the time of search and seizure 1 cow and 6 oxen were found to be dead. Thus on such allegation Dhanwar P.S. Case No.368/2018 was registered under Section 414/120B of the Indian Penal Code ad Section 11 of the Prevention of Animal Creulty Act as against 25 named accused persons.

4. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle which has been seized by the police is HR-39-C-4379 and not HR-39C-4380. He further submits that in the FIR, the vehicle number is disclosed as HR-39C-4380. He also submits that the petitioner is the owner of three trucks and the registration numbers of the trucks are HR-39C-4379, HR-39C-4380 and HR-39C-4381. He further submits that the police has also given report that the vehicle which has been seized is HR-39C-4380 and not HR-39C-4379, which is contained in Annexure-7 of the petition. He further submits that the learned court has rejected the prayer for released of the said truck only on the ground that the police has not seized HR-39C-4379.

5. On perusal of the police report, contained in Annexure-7 of the petition, it is crystal clear that the police has stated that the vehicle number HR-39C-4380 has been seized and on physical verification of the vehicle and documents, there are difference in engine number and chasis number. The registration certificates of the said three trucks have been annexed at Anneuxre-2 series of the petition, wherein vehicle number and chasis number of the said trucks has also been mentioned. Learned counsel for the State has also verified from Annexure-2 Series about the chasis and engine number and submits that they are tallying. Moreover, the vehicle in question is allowed to languish in the premise of Police Station, it will destroy.

6. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no provision of confiscation under Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005. He further 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 also 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 vehicle in question is 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 upon the case of Mirza Dildar Beg & Others reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 55 . He further relied upon the case of Md. Reyazuddin Versus The State of Jharkhand reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 985. He further relied upon Cr. Rev. No.1407 of 2016 in the case of Raju Prasad Keshri Versus The State of Jharkhand.

7. Per contra, Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned counsel for the State submits that the vehicle