The ownership and non-misuse of the vehicle were crucial factors in allowing the petition and setting aside the revisional Court's order.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide which revision petition filed by the State, against the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, releasing the vehicle of the petitioner on superdari, was allowed and the order of the SDJM was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Tata Ace bearing registration No.HR-58B-5788 was apprehended in FIR No.20 dated 12.02.2016 under Sections 4B/8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty against Animals, 1960 and Section 13 (2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, Police Station Khizrabad, with the allegations that the accused person namely Sahid Ahmad was found transporting the cows in violation of the aforesaid Acts.

3. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for releasing the vehicle in question on superdari and the same was allowed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 29.02.2016, by passing the following order: -

'Heard, the applicant has submitted before the Court the original Registration Certificate which shows that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. In the police report, it is not stated that the vehicle has been confiscated under the orders of the competent authority as per the provisions contained in the Gau Sanrakshan and Sanwardhan Act, 2015. It is not stated in the report that the vehicle is required for the purposes of investigation, in the above circumstances, the applicant being the registered owner, is entitled to possession of the vehicle. Hence, the applicant is directed to furnish superdaginama in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Superdaginama and surety bond furnished, accepted and attested. Let the vehile TATA ACE bearing Registration No.HR58B-5788 be released in favour of the applicant Sahid Ahmad. The applicant. Superdar is directed to produce the vehicle before the court as and when ordered to do so. The applicant/Superdar is further directed not to sell the vehicle in question during the trial without permission of the court and not to change the colour or shape of the same during the trial. The original R.C. be retained on the judicial file. Ordered accordingly.'

4. Thereafter, the State filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions, challenging the order passed by the SDJM. The revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 16.03.2016, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the SDJM, only on the ground that SDJM has no power to release the vehicle in question, in case of non-compliance of the conditions specified under Section 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015.

5. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 12.10.2017, while issuing notice of motion, operation of the impugned order dated 16.03.2016 was stayed by this Court and in the intervening period, the vehicle was released on superdari and the same is still in possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that since the time, when the vehicle was released by the trial Court, he has not misused the same and is not involved in any other case of similar nature subsequent to registration of the present FIR and it being a commercial vehicle, it is only source of income of the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order dated 16.03.2016 may be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since as per Section 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, an officer, not below the rank of Sub Inspector, is empowered to confiscate the vehicle, whereas it was confiscated by a Head Constable and therefore, the impugned order passed by t