Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1233 (JHR)

Md. Guddu Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-06

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : The instant Application has been preferred against the order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in P.C.A No.567/2014, whereby the prayer for release of the truck bearing registration no. WB-41D-2866 was rejected, which was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad vide order dated 19.3.2015 in Cr.Rev. No.61/2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized truck bearing registration no. WB-41D-2866 and the said truck had been purchased after taking loan and the installment is being paid on monthly basis. That the said truck is a commercial vehicle and is the only means of livelihood of the petitioner and his family. It is submitted that the learned court below has rejected the prayer for release of the said truck in terms of Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005(herein after referred as 'Act') and held that the vehicle is liable to be forfeited by the State of Jharkhand under the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the provisions of the Act which contemplates that vehicle shall be liable to be forfeited/confiscated by the State Government after the order of conviction is recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under similar circumstances, a Bench of this Court, in Cr.M.P.No. 3018 of 2013, had ordered for release the vehicle and held that “it would not be proper and appropriate to allow the vehicles to be kept in the custody of the police, as admittedly the petitioner are still to be put on trial”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 wherein it had been categorically stated that a commercial vehicle should not be kept in the police custody for a very long period. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed and submitted that the said truck was carrying Bovine animals which were in loaded in a pathetic and cruel condition and the driver of the said truck did not produce any certificate under Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, which is mandatory for carriage of Bovine animals from one State to the other via Jharkhand. 4. Heard. 4. Heard. Perused the impugned order and provisions of Section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 reads as under:- “12 Penalty-(1) Whoever contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 5 or Section 6 or Section 7 shall on conviction be punished with a rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but may extend to 10 years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. (2) Whoever contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of Sub-Section (a) and (b) of Section 4 shall on conviction be punished with a rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to 3 years and with a fine which may extend to 5 thousand rupees: Provided that except for special and adequate reasons to be recorded in the judgment of the Court such imprisonment shall not be less than six months and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees. (3) Whenever a vehicle is found to have been used in transportation of Cattle or beef contravening any provision of this Act the vehicle shall be forfeited to the State Government.” 5. Admittedly the petitioner is the registered owner of the said truck which is lying without any use in the premises of police station in an uncared manner and over a period of time, it will be damaged which will cause financial loss to the claimant as well as state exchequer due to non-pliance of the vehicle and considering the provisions of the Act as noted above and the decision relied on by the petitioner Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), it would not be just and proper to allow the vehicle to be kept in the police custody. State of Gujarat (supra), it would not be just and proper to allow the vehicle to be kept in the police custody. Thus, the trial court shall order for the release of the truck bearing No. WB-41D-2866, in favour of the petitioner on furnishing of the indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the trial court with sureties who shall be owners of such vehicle and on an undertaking given by him:- (i) that the vehicle shall not be transferred either by sale, mortgage or transfer or in any other mode till the conclusion of the trial, (ii) that he shall produce the said vehicle before the competent authority/court as and when directed, (iii) that he shall not change the colour or tamper with the identity of the vehicle in any manner, and, any other terms and conditions which the trial court deems fit and proper to impose. With the aforesaid direction the order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in P.C.A No.567/2014, and the order dated 19.3.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr.Rev. No.61/2015, are hereby set aside. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is hereby disposed of.