Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2196 (ALL)

IMRAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-05-11

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, appearing for the applicants and AGA for the State. 2. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Cr.P.C.’), it is prayed that the Court below be directed to release the bullocks in favour of the applicants, which were seized by the police of P.S. Brahm Puri, Meerut, in Case Crime No. 99 of 2009, under Section 3/5A U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Cow Slaughter Act’) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (in short ‘the Animals’ Cruelty Act’). 3. From the record, it is revealed that the applicants were carrying 18 bullocks in two trucks, which were seized by the police of P.S. Brahmpuri, Meerut and a case under Section 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Animals’ Cruelty Act was registered against the applicants and some other persons at crime No. 99 of 2009. The applicants have been released on bail vide order dated 25.3.2009, passed by Spl. Judge SC/ST Act, Meerut in Bail Application No. 990 of 2009. It appears that the applicants moved an application to release the bullocks in their favour. That application has been rejected by the Sp. CJM, Meerut, vide order dated 2.4.2009. Being aggrieved, the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court to issue direction to the Court below to release the bullocks in their favour. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Asfaq Ahmad and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2008(63) ACC 938 and Kailash Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2009(64) ACC 6, mere carrying or transporting cow, bull or bullock from one place to another place in Uttar Pradesh does not constitute any offence under the Cow Slaughter Act, if other conditions specified therein are not satisfied. 5. Next submission made by learned counsel is that the applicants are carrying on the business of purchasing or selling animals and in present case also the applicants after purchasing the bullocks from Hissar (Haryana) were carrying them for the purpose of selling and they were not carrying the bullock for the purpose of slaughtering. 5. Next submission made by learned counsel is that the applicants are carrying on the business of purchasing or selling animals and in present case also the applicants after purchasing the bullocks from Hissar (Haryana) were carrying them for the purpose of selling and they were not carrying the bullock for the purpose of slaughtering. It is also submitted in this context that merely on the basis of carrying or transporting the cow, bull or bullock, it cannot be presumed that the same were being carried or transported for slaughtering. 6. It is also submitted that while declining to release the bullocks in favour of the applicants vide order dated 2.4.2009 in case Crime No. 99 of 2009, the Court below totally ignored the guidelines and directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003(46) ACC 233 (SC). 7. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is contended that the applicants are entitled to get the custody of the bullocks, being their owner. 8. The learned AGA has opposed the application and it is submitted by him that the bullocks were being transported for the purpose of slaughtering and hence the Court below did not commit any illegality in declining to release the bullocks in favour of the applicants. 9. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties’ counsel and after going through the decisions in the cases referred to hereinabove, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicants, in my opinion, the bullocks may be given in the custody of applicants, because they are the owners of these bullocks. It is not the case of prosecution that the bullocks are stolen property. From the order dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure 1) passed by the Special CJM Meerut, it is revealed that receipts of the bullocks were produced by the applicants in support of their release application. No other person had claimed the bullocks. The applicants have been granted bail in aforesaid case Crime No. 99 of 2009. vide order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure 2) passed by Spl. Judge SC/ST Act Meerut. Therefore, imposing certain conditions, the bullocks may be released in favour of the applicants. 10. Consequently, the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. No other person had claimed the bullocks. The applicants have been granted bail in aforesaid case Crime No. 99 of 2009. vide order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure 2) passed by Spl. Judge SC/ST Act Meerut. Therefore, imposing certain conditions, the bullocks may be released in favour of the applicants. 10. Consequently, the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The Court below is directed to give those bullocks pertaining to Case Crime No. 99 of 2009 of P.S. Brahm Puri, Meerut in the custody of applicants Imran and Naushad which are owned by them, subject to their executing a personal bond with an undertaking in following terms : (1) That the applicants shall not slaughter the bullocks and also will not sell them for the purpose of slaughtering. (2) In case of natural death of any bullock, the applicants shall immediately inform the Court concerned as well as police station concerned. On receiving such information, S.O. P.S. concerned shall inspect the body of the dead bullock with a view to ensure that the death of the bullock is natural. (3) The applicants may sell the bullocks after obtaining prior permission of the Court concerned and the purchaser also will execute a similar undertaking in the above mentioned terms. ————