The central legal point established in the judgment is that the seizure under Section 10(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act must be made by a competent authority and the factum of seizure must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Heard through V.C.

2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned amicus for the petitioner No.1 and Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3.

3. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 06.06.2012, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Simdega in T. Tangar P.S. Case No.53 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No.382 of 2006, T.R. No.4 of 2011, whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sections 12 (2) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (One thousand) each and in default of payment of fine petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; has been sustained.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.10.2006 at about 6.00 P.M. the informant was standing at the front of his door along with his neighbours. In the meantime he noticed four persons coming with 19 cows and calves from jungle side and then they suspected that they are being taken for the purpose of slaughtering and sale of their skin and flesh and they all were chased and two persons were arrested by the villagers namely Chand Manjhi and Juel Oraon. The apprehended persons disclosed the name of their associates who escaped from the scene as Shaukat and Imteyaz. It was further disclosed by the apprehended persons that the cows and calves in question were purchased by Imteyaz and Shaukat for the purpose of slaughtering them and they had been hired to carry the cattle for the wages of Rs.150. All cows along with apprehended persons were produced before the police.

5. On the basis of the written report of the informant the First Information Report was lodged under Sections 4, 4 (A) and 12 (2) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 (Hereinafter referred as the Act, 2005).

6. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted the chargesheet and the petitioners pleaded not guilty and were sent up for trial. In order to prove the case the prosecution has produced altogether 8 witnesses in which P.W. 8 was the informant. The learned trial court after dealing with the evidence both oral and documentary convicted the petitioners for the charge under Section 12 (2) of the Act and sentenced them accordingly. Being aggrieved the petitioners challenged the trial court order before the appellate court. However, the same was confirmed.

7. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Amicus for the petitioner No.1, assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 assailed the impugned order on three counts:

a) Seizure has not been made by the competent authority as provided under Section 10(3) of the Act inasmuch as the seizure has been done by the Assistant Sub Inspector which is against the mandate of Section 10(3) of the Act.

b) Seizure list has not been signed by the accused persons leading to the conclusion that factum of seizure is not proved.

c) Flesh and skin etc. of the animals were not produced before the Court so as to prove that there is some violation of the Act.

8. He further submits that for no offence the petitioners remained in custody for several days. However, due to the lacuna in the impugned judgment the same requires interference.

9. Md. Hatim, learned APP submits that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below as such no interference is required. However, Mr. Hatim, could not dispute the fact that seizure has been done by Assistant Sub Inspector who was not competent.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the lower court records it appears that the learned trial court has committed gross error in ignoring the specific provision with reg