The Act does not provide for confiscation of the vehicle, and forfeiture can only occur after a trial concludes with a conviction. The commercial nature of the vehicle and relevant legal provisions and precedents influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken 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 on merit.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 18.01.2021 in Criminal Revision No.57 of 2020 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No.120 of 2019, whereby, the prayer for release of vehicle has been rejected by the revisional court and the order of the trial court has been affirmed.

4. The story of the prosecution is that the informant namely Ashok Prasad O/C Dumri Police Station has narrated in his written complaint that on 28.09.2019 at around 12:15 a.m. superior police officers got secret information that Truck No. WB-23C-8093 loaded with cattle is coming from Bagodar side. The patrolling party of Dumri P.S. was ordered to come back to the police station at once. Further the information was entered into Station Diary Entry (S.D.E.) and then along with Gasti parties proceeded for verification of the information and after reaching village Kulgo, waited for the said vehicle. Further at around 03:05 a.m., the aforesaid vehicle was coming, which was stopped by the patrolling party but the driver fled away towards hilly area after seeing the police. Since it was night hence no independent persons were found therefore in presence of the raiding party, the vehicle was searched in which 16 cows and 4 calf were loaded and accordingly seized and seizure list was prepared.

5. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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.

6. Per contra, Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. for the State submits that the vehicle in question was 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 further 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 Secti