ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. With the consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the matter is heard today finally.

2. This petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India essentially seeking the relief to release the muddamal vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-05-UU-1120 (TATA 407 Tempo), which was seized in connection with the offence punishable under the various provisions of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011, The Gujarat Animal Preservation Amendment Act, 2017, the Gujarat Animal Prevention Act, 1954 and the Gujarat Police Act and the Motor Vehicle Act., on suitable terms and conditions.

3. The original petitioner Siddik Aiyub Kathiya has died and by order dated 22.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application (For bringing heirs) No. 1 of 2020 in Special Criminal Application No. 4278 of 2019, the son of original petitioner has come on record.

4. Mr. Pradip Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the original petitioner was the owner of the Muddamal vehicle and the same vehicle was given to one Mr. Dilipbhai Kantibhai Nayak on rent agreement to use the same for transportation of vegetables. Mr Pradip Patel, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the activity of the accused, who had used the Tempo which had been used for transporting 7 Oxen and 2 Cows worth Rs.45,000/- and has also alleged it was to be taken to slaughter house and when the vehicle was intercepted, the accused left the Tempo unattended. Learned advocate Mr. Pradip submitted that the lower Court ought to have considered the charge-sheet filed by the Police where it is an admitted fact that the vehicle was given on rent for transporting vegetables. He stated that the original petitioner was witness in the chargesheet which shows that there was no involvement of the original Petitioner in the alleged crime.

4.1 Referring to the provisions of Section 6A(4) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011, learned advocate Mr. Pradip Patel submitted that the vehicle was seized on 29.12.2017 and the seized vehicle becomes entitled to be released after expiry of 6 months from the date of seizure. He has further submitted that the original petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and has not been named in the complaint. The copy of the R.C. Book has been produced on record to prove the aspect of ownership.

4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the muddamal vehicle has been detained by the investigating ofÏcer and that if the interim custody of the vehicle is not given, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as the muddamal vehicle would get substantially damaged by the time the trial gets concluded and probably, by that time, the value of the muddamal vehicle may also become ‘Nil’ as the vehicle is lying under the open sky in different climatic conditions.It was, accordingly, urged that this Court may direct release of the muddamal vehicle in exercise of the extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on suitable terms and conditions.

5. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, referring to the amended provisions as Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 submitted that sub-section 4 of Section 6A of the original Act has been amended and substituted with effect that any vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-section (3) of Section 6A, shall stand forfeited to the Government. She has stated that the subject vehicle cannot be granted to the petitioner since there is a deemed forfeiture of the Government on the vehicle. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petition may not be entertained.

6. Countering the same, Mr. Pradip Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the original petitioner was the owner of the