Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 230 (UTT)

SEHNAZ v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-04-10

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 03.03.2012 (Annexure 2 to the petition) along with order dated 18.03.2017 (Annexure 3 to the petition), as also the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 12676 / 2013, State vs Bhoora Teli & others, under Sections 5, 6 and 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even if the entire contents of FIR filed against the applicant be presumed to be true, no case under Section 5, 6 and 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is, prima facie, made out against him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court towards Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Act to show that only beef and cow progeny are prohibited under the Act. 4. It is also pertinent to mention here Section 5 and Section 6 of the Act for deciding present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Said sections read as under: “5. Prohibition on sale or keeping in possession of beef – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall keep in possession or cause to keep in possession or sell or transport or offer for sale or transport or cause to be sold to transported, beef or beef products in any form. 6. Regulation of transport of cow progeny – (1) No person shall transport of (sic) offer for transport or cause to be transported any such cow progeny, the slaughter whereof is punishable under this Act, from any place within the State to any place outside the State except under a permit issued by an officer authorized and notified by the State Government in this behalf and in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit. (2) Competent Authority shall issue the permit on payment of a fee of rupees 500 for every cow progeny under sub-section (1) after satisfying himself of the compliance of the provisions of sub-section (3). (3) Permission may be granted only for rearing, protection and promotion of cow progeny under sub-section (1). (2) Competent Authority shall issue the permit on payment of a fee of rupees 500 for every cow progeny under sub-section (1) after satisfying himself of the compliance of the provisions of sub-section (3). (3) Permission may be granted only for rearing, protection and promotion of cow progeny under sub-section (1). (4) The form of permit and application thereof and the procedure for disposal of such application shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. (5) The State Government or any Competent Authority authorized by it, for the purpose of satisfying itself, as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under this section, may call for and examine the record of any case and pass such order thereon as he may deem fit.” [Emphasis supplied] 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that hides have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused, which is not prohibited by any of the provisions of the Act. 6. Initially, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Brief Holder for the State had requested the Court to give him time to place the Notification to resolve the controversy in hand, but in spite of granting three opportunities, no such Notification has been placed before the Court. 7. Foundation of criminal offence is, therefore, not laid against the present applicant, who has been implicated only because she is recorded owner of the truck by which the alleged hides were being transported. 8. Although jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, but this is one such case, in which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 9. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be quashed at the admission stage itself. 10. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. The charge sheet dated 03.03.2012 along with order dated 18.03.2017, as also the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 12676 / 2013, State vs Bhoora Teli & others, under Sections 5, 6 and 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed qua applicant only. 11. 12676 / 2013, State vs Bhoora Teli & others, under Sections 5, 6 and 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed qua applicant only. 11. Liberty is granted to the respondent State, with the consent of learned counsel for the applicant, to place any material before the Court, along with recall application, to show that hides are covered under the provisions of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, whenever such provision is brought to its notice.