Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 647 (JHR)

Mahatab Alam @ Laddu Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2017-04-07

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard Mr. D.K. Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned J.C. to G.P.II for the State. 2. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the revision application preferred against the order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 16 of 2014 refusing to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioners has been affirmed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that only consideration has been made with respect to Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of vehicle in question and there is no bar under Section 12(3) of the said Act to confiscate the vehicle till the trial of the accused are concluded. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to an order passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2862 of 2013 (Mirza Dildar Beg and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand). 4. Learned J.C. to G.P.II for the State has supported the impugned order. 5. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted being Seraikella P.S. Case No. 01 of 2014 on the allegation that two vehicles were carrying bovine animals and no valid documents could be produced which led to a conclusion that the bovine animals were being transported far illegal trading. The petitioner no. 1 claims himself to be the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH 052-7212 whereas the petitioner no. 2 claims himself to the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH 05AV-8031. An application for release of the vehicles were jointly filed by the petitioners which however was rejected on 1.3.2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella on the ground that no documents could be produced with respect to the transportation of the bovine animals. 2 claims himself to the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH 05AV-8031. An application for release of the vehicles were jointly filed by the petitioners which however was rejected on 1.3.2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella on the ground that no documents could be produced with respect to the transportation of the bovine animals. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella the petitioners had preferred a revision application being Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2014 which however was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan on 27.11.2014 on the ground that in view of the Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, the provision being prohibitory in nature the vehicle shall be forfeited to the State Government. A similar issue had fall for consideration before this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2862 of 2013 (Mirza Dildar Beg and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand) wherein this Court had passed an order on 13.01.2014 which is reflected as under :- "Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that under Section 12(1) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, one can be convicted which may extend to ten years and at the same time, as per sub-section (3) of Section 12, the vehicle which would be found to have been used in transportation of cattle or beef in contravention of the provision of this Act, shall be liable to be forfeited to the State Government and therefore, the vehicle can be forfeited if it is found to have been used in contravention of the provision of the Act but that can be forfeited only after the order of conviction is recorded against the petitioners. In such situation, it would not be proper and appropriate for the Court to allow the vehicles to be kept in the custody of the police that too under the vigorous of the climate and under this situation, the vehicles seized be released in favour of the petitioners. On perusal of the provision as contained need in Section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, I do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The said provision reads as follows : "12. On perusal of the provision as contained need in Section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, I do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The said provision reads as follows : "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-sections (a) and (b) of Section 4 shall on conviction be punished with rigorous imprisonments 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." From its perusal, it does appear that if one is found to have been carried cattle or beef under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, he can be sentenced upto ten years. At the same time, if the vehicle is found to have been used in transportation of cattle or beef contravening any provision of this Act it is liable to be forfeited to the State Government. Under the circumstances, it would not be proper and appropriate to allow the vehicles to be kept in the custody of the police as admittedly the petitioners are still to be put on trial." 6. What can be culled out from the aforesaid order that the vehicle cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period when the petitioners themselves have not been put on trial. The order referred to above squarely covers the case of the petitioners. What can be culled out from the aforesaid order that the vehicle cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period when the petitioners themselves have not been put on trial. The order referred to above squarely covers the case of the petitioners. Section 12(3) of the Act has not been properly interpreted by the learned revisional court and a plain meaning has been given to the said provision without looking into the depth of the provisions of law as enumerated above. Such circumstance, therefore, definitely entitles the petitioners to interference in the impugned orders under challenge. 7. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in Seraikella P.S. Case No. 01 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 16 of 2014 as also the order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2014 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 8. It is once again made clear that while considering the release application of the petitioners the learned Magistrate shall not be swayed by the provision of Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 and shall merely concentrate himself with respect to the documents which may be produced by the petitioners to substantiate their contentions that the petitioners are the owners of the vehicles bearing registration Nos. JH 05Z-7212 and JH 05AV -8031. 9. This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.