The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class to release seized property on interim custody cannot be deemed to be ousted unless specifically restricted by the law.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17/02/2022 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in Criminal Revision No.21/2022, whereby the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwani on 04/02/2022 in Crime No.747/2021 under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07/10/2021 police got a discrete information from the informant that on pickup vehicle bearing registration number MP-46-G-1276 is transporting calf illegally from Ganpur Chowkdi to Maharashtra for slaughtering.

3. Act upon the said information, police party reached on the spot and during the search it was found that vehicle was loaded with seven calf without any valid permit, which was seized by the police and offence under Section 4, 6 and 9 of the M. P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (in short 'Adhiniyam of 2004) read with Section 11-D of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has been registered against the present petitioner.

4. During the investigation, the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the seized vehicle and the JMFC, Barwani after hearing both the parties rejected the application vide order dated 04/02/2022. The order dated 04/02/2022 was challenged before the Revisional Court but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 17/02/2022. Therefore, present petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. He was using the vehicle for his business purposes. The trial Court has erred in not considering the important aspect that there is no bar provided under the Adhiniyam of 2004. The seized vehicle is lying in an open area in Police Station and there is no proper arrangement for its care. Vehicle is deteriorating day by day. He further submitted that trial is pending since long before the concerned trial Court and the confiscation proceedings have been finalized against the petitioner before the final judgment of the trial Court. Hence, he prays that both the impugned orders be set aside and the seized vehicle be handed over to the applicant on Supurdagi.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the petition and prays for its rejection by submitting that the vehicle in question is the subject matter of confiscation proceeding and the Collector, Barwani has given information regarding the confiscation to the concerned Magistrate and the police officers, therefore, no ground is available to the petitioner to handover the said vehicle.

7. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and to advert such contention, the relevant provision of the Adhiniyam of 2004 is required to be seen.

8. As per Section 11(5) of the Adhiniyam of 2004, it is clear that in case of any violation of Section 4, 5, 6-A and 6-B, the Police Authorities is empowered to seize the vehicle or cow progeny and beef. The District Magistrate is having power to confiscate the same in a manner prescribed under Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules of 2012, which deals, confiscation, and appeal are relevant, however, it is reproduced as under:-

'Rule 5. Confiscation by District Magistrate.--

In case of any violation of Section 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per the provisions of Section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No.2 of 1974) in following manner:-

(i) He shall take possession of the vehicle.

(ii) He shall intimate the Veterinary Department to take in custody of the cow-progeny and beef.

(iii) The beef of cow- rogeny shall be disposed of by the Department by such procedure as he deems fit.

Rule 6. Manner of Appeal.-- Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act, may prefer an appeal in writing to the Divisional Commissioner within thi