Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2653 (RAJ)

Deewan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2008-12-03

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SINGH, J.—The facts in brief of the case are that on 22.4.1995 at about 6.45 P.M. Raghuveer Singh ASI, Baney Singh Constable-781, Hakim Singh Constable-582 and Girdhar Singh Constable-675 of Police Station, Halena spotted a Tata Truck 407 No. 05-G-0517 coming from Jaipur to Bharatpur was stopped and checked. On asking, the driver informed them that the truck was carrying fodder. But the police found that 6 cows and one calf badly stuffed in the vehicle. Five persons were there in the truck including driver Satish Singh and the petitioner who was said to be the owner of the truck. The police came to know that the cows were being transported to Kirawali only to be butchered. All the occupants including the petitioner were taken to police station Halena along with the truck and cows and registered an FIR No. 46/95 Under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain animals Act (hereinafter referred to as RPCA Act), at the instance of Sh. Reghuveer Singh, ASI and investigation started. 2. The Police after investigation filed a charge-sheet under Section 3 & 5 read with Section 2 of RPCA Act before the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) & Judicial Magistrate, Vair who committed the case to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana, District Bharatpur. The Addl. Sessions Judge Bharatpur after hearing both the parties, directed vide his order dated 11.9.1997 that the charge under Section 2 red with Section 5 of RPCA Act be framed and to read over to all the accused persons including the petitioner. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the petitioner and other accused persons. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the trial court dated 11.9.97, the petitioner prefers the present revision petition. 4. Mr. Himmat Singh Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that no prima facie case under Section 2 read with Section 5 of RPCA Act is made out against the petitioner. He contended that the injuries found on the body of the cows and calf were simple in nature which are likely in the course of transportation. A cow died because of respiratory insufficiency caused by acute infections plauro pneumonia as per post postmortem report dated 9.5.97 which cannot be ascribed to petitioners over-tact. 5. He contended that the injuries found on the body of the cows and calf were simple in nature which are likely in the course of transportation. A cow died because of respiratory insufficiency caused by acute infections plauro pneumonia as per post postmortem report dated 9.5.97 which cannot be ascribed to petitioners over-tact. 5. He further contended that the petitioner was not with the vehicle, he went on the spot after he received message of the seizure of the vehicle by the police and the police has falsely shown his presence on the spot after a hot exchange between him and the police who demanded illegal gratification for the release of the vehicle. He further contended that the petitioner was not the registered owner of the seized vehicle. He contended that even if the petitioner is an owner, then also transporter cannot be held guilty of the charge leveled unless he had knowledge of the offence or activity abated it. Hence, the judgment and order dated 11.9.97 whereby framing a charge under Section 2 read with Section 5 of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed and set-aside . 6. Lastly Mr. Hemmant Singh has urged to this Court that the aforesaid legal grounds along with others raised before this Court were not considered by the trial court at the time of framing of the charge, therefore, the matter should be remanded to the trial court. 7. B.N. Sandu Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 8. I have heard leaned counsel for both the parties and also perused the impugned order dated 11.9.1997 passed by the trial court as well as the material available before me. 9. Taking into consideration and the reasons mentioned above, I set-aside the order dated 9.11.1997 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 38/95, but at the same time, I direct the trial court to re-hear the matter and decide the same as afresh within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. The trial court is further directed that after hearing both the parties if it reach to the conclusion that the charge is to be framed, then the trial court may proceed and expedite the matter in accordance with law. 11. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.