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 a conviction is held, and the need to prevent damage and loss of utility of seized vehicles.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioners bearing registration no. as PW-1 (WB 11D 2683), PW-2 (WB 11C 2430), PW-3 (WB 23B 7111) and PW -4 (WB 23B 6528) which has been seized in connection with Syamsunderpur PS Case No.07/2021 (G.R.Case No.181/2021), pending in the court of learned SDJM, Ghatshila.

3. That the recourse of the law set on motion on the basis of self statement of SI, Kajal Kumar Dubey that he got a secret information on 9.3.2021 at about 11 pm that animals are being illegally transported from Bihar to Bengal. On the above information he with other police personnel reached near the boundary of Shamsunderpur they blocked the road and started checking at about 1 am. That it is alleged that several trucks, pickup vans came there and on asking they found that animals were loaded and no paper was produced by the drivers of few trucks and few was able to flee away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter those trucks searched and found several animals were tied with ropes and then all the trucks were seized and present FIR has been lodged against the drivers and owner of the respective trucks.

4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, 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.

5. Per contra, Mr. Pati, 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 Singhwith 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.

6. 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 Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005 which reads as under:-

"Whenever a vehicle is found to have been used in transportation of Cattle or Beef contravening any provision of this Act the Vehicle shall be forfeited to the State Government."

7. On plain reading of the provision it is clear that the words used " vehicle is found to have been used........" literally the use of word, the section connotes that a finding has to be arrived at that the vehicle was used in transportation of cattle or beef in contravention of the provision of the Act. Such finding can