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, 2005, and the impracticality of detaining the vehicle without use.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to release the commercial vehicles/Truck bearing Registration No. NL-01AD-0675, which was seized in connection with Sadar Police Station Case No. 273 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.

3. The prosecution case is based on the written application of Hawildar Ahmad Ali Khan, addressed to Officer in Charge Sadar Police Station, Chatra on 31.07.2019 alleging inter-alia that on 31.07.2019 he was on patrolling duty along with other police officials at about 2:00 am in the night in the meantime a truck came which was instructed to stop due to the suspicion then the truck driver stopped the vehicle and fled away from the place of occurrence after parking the vehicle in the road side. The Truck being NO. BR-02GA-9393 was inspected in presence of the witnesses after giving the information to higher police officials and all together 27 bovine animals were recovered from the truck which was seized under a seizure list in presence of the police witnesses and then same was brought to the police station and the FIR was registered as the transportation of the bovine animal is an offence under the Act.

4. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, 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 and Others, 2014 SCC Online Jhar 55. He further relied the case of Md. Reyazuddin vs. State of Jharkhand, 2014 SCC Online Jhar 985. He further relied on Cr. Rev. No. 1407 of 2016 in the case of Raju Prasad Keshri vs. State of Jharkhand.

5. Per contra, Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, 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 vs. State of Jharkhand. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Uday Singh, (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 Ac