Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 425 (CHH)

Kaluram Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-11-26

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Vehicle bearing registration No. MP-20-HB/0664 (Truck) was found involved in commission of Crime No. 80/2014 registered at Police Station, Charcha, District Korea under Sections 6 and 10 of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (for short "the Act, 2004") (as amended in 2011) and Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960") as well as violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and as such, the said Truck was seized by the said Police Station. The petitioner herein being registered owner of said Truck moved an application before the Trial Magistrate under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. claiming that he being registered owner is entitled for custody of said vehicle as it is likely to be damaged by lying unused in the Police Station and he is ready and willing to furnish bond of appropriate amount as directed by the said Court. 2. Learned Trial Magistrate, by its order dated 19-5-2014 rejected the said application placing reliance upon the provisions contained in Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004, holding that he is not entitled for Supurdnama before expiry of period of six months from the date of seizure. The petitioner preferred revision before the Court of Sessions questioning the order passed by the Trial Magistrate. The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision holding that petitioner is not entitled for custody of vehicle in view of express bar contained in Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004. Impugning legality, validity and correctness of both the orders, instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Shri Vijay Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that vehicle seized by the police station against the Crime No. 80/14 is lying unused in a open place likely to be damaged if the said vehicle is not allowed to be given on Supurdnama and ends of justice would be served by giving custody of said vehicle to the petitioner by setting aside the orders passed by the Trial Magistrate as well as by Revisional Court. 4. 4. Shri D.K. Gwalre, learned Counsel appearing for the State would submit that said vehicle was found illegally transporting 28 (calves) agricultural cattle from the State of Chhattisgarh for the purpose of slaughtering in contravention of provisions of the Act, 2004 and the said 28 calves are the agricultural cattle as specified in Schedule I of Section 2(a) of the Act, 2004, and therefore, under Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004, there is express bar from releasing the said vehicle on Supurdnama before expiry of period of six months from the date of its seizure, and as such, the order of Trial Magistrate as affirmed by the Revisional Court are absolutely justified and this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders impugned with utmost circumspection. 6. From a close and careful perusal of record would show that 28 calves were seized by the Police Station, Charcha on 11-5-2014 from the Truck No. MP-20-HB-0664 and registered a Crime No. 80/14 for commission of offence under Sections 6and 10 of the Act, 2004, under Section 11(d) of the Act, 1960 and also under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and custody of said vehicle has been claimed by the petitioner herein being the registered owner of the said vehicle. 7. At this stage, it would be profitable to quote Schedule I of Section 2(a) of the Act, 2004, which defines agricultural cattle as under:-- Agricultural Cattle.-- (1) Cows of all ages. (2) Calves of cows and of she buffaloes. (3) Bulls. (4) Bullocks. (5) Male, Female buffaloes. 8. Likewise, Section 6 of the Act, 2004 provides for prohibition on transport of agriculture cattle for slaughter, which reads as under:-- "(1) No person shall sell, or transport or offer to transport or cause to be transported any agriculture cattle from any place within the State to any place within the State or outside the State, for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so slaughtered. (2) Whenever any person transports or causes to be transported in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) any agriculture cattle as specified in the Schedule, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting such animal alongwith such agriculture cattle shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf. (3) The vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-section (2) shall not be released by the order of the Court on bond or surety before the expiry of six months from the date of such seizure or till the final judgment of the Court, whichever is earlier and such vehicle shall also be liable for confiscation at the end of the trial." 9. A bare perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, 2004 would show that sell, transport, offer to transport, cause to transport agriculture cattle as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act, from any place to any place within the State or outside the State, for the purpose of its slaughter is prohibited and violative of provisions of sub-section (1) and such vehicle used in transporting such animal alongwith such agricultural cattle shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer and by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 6 that vehicle so seized shall not be released by the order of the Court on bond or surety before the expiry of six months from the date of such seizure or till the final judgment of the Court, whichever is earlier. 10. Thus, there is legislative injunction to the Court that vehicle so seized in transporting agricultural cattle is liable to be confiscated and shall not be released even by the order of Court before expiry of six months from the date of seizure or till final, judgment of the Court. 11. The constitutional validity of Section 6(2) and Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004 was challenged before Division Bench of this Court in case of Mohd. 11. The constitutional validity of Section 6(2) and Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004 was challenged before Division Bench of this Court in case of Mohd. Aslam Chouhan vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, 2014 (1) M.P.H.T. 104 (CG) : AIR 2014 CG 1, wherein it has been held by Their Lordships that Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Act, 2004 restricting release of vehicle used for transporting agricultural cattle for slaughtering, before six months or before the conclusion of trial (whichever is earlier) is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and vehicle can be released after expiry of six months or conclusion of trial whichever is earlier and as such restriction on release is not prohibition but is a regulation, and held as under:-- "46. Our conclusions are as follows:-- (a) Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 are applicable only if Section 6(1) is applicable. The limitation for not releasing a vehicle within a period of six months or till the conclusion of trial (whichever is earlier) is attracted only if Section 6(1) is applicable. In case, the Magistrate is prima facie of the view that the agriculture cattle were not being transported for slaughtering, then the embargo contained in Sections 6(2) and 6(3) are not applicable. (b) In any case, the limitation for not releasing the vehicle case is not applicable after expiry of six months or conclusion of the trial (whichever is earlier) and in that event, release of the vehicle has to be considered under the provisions of the Cr. P.C. (c) Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 are valid." 12. Thus, if the facts of present case are examined in the light of provisions contained in Sections 6(2) and 6(3) and also in the light of decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Md. P.C. (c) Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 are valid." 12. Thus, if the facts of present case are examined in the light of provisions contained in Sections 6(2) and 6(3) and also in the light of decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Md. Aslam Chouhan (supra), it is crystal clear that said vehicle was found involved in transporting 28 calves of cows to other place for slaughtering, which is scheduled cattle within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act, 2004 and, therefore, bar under Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004 is squarely apply and as the vehicle was seized on 11-5-2014 and petitioner moved an application for custody of said vehicle on 13-5-2014 without waiting expiry of statutory period of six months as provided in Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004, and therefore, said application was clearly not maintainable in view of bar engrafted under Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004, and as such, both the Courts below were perfectly justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for custody of said vehicle being hit by Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004. As a fallout and consequence of above stated discussion, application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No costs.