Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 653 (JHR)

Satrughan Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-04-07

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned J. C. to G.P. II. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.11.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2016 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj whereby and whereunder the order dated 16.3.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sahibganj in connection with Barhaite P. S. Case No. 58 of 2015 refusing to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned courts below has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the '' Act- ) while refusing to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner is in possession of the vehicle in question after it was transferred to him by ex-owner Jai Kishore Choudhary. 4. Learned J.C. to G.P. II opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that Barhaite P. S. Case No. 58 of 2015 was instituted on the allegation of illegal smuggling of cattle in a truck bearing registration No. BR-10G/1858. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the vehicle in question and has filed an application for its release dated 14-3-2016, which however was rejected on 16-3-2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sahibganj. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2016 which also was rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj on 17.11.2016. The primary consideration which has been made by the learned courts below rejecting the release application of the petitioner is Section 12(3) of the Act. In a similar circumstance in the case of ''Mirza Didar Beg and others v. State of Jharkhand'' in Cri. M.P. No. 2862 of 2013, this court has passed an order on 13.1.2014 which is quoted hereinbelow: "On perusal of the provision as contained 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. M.P. No. 2862 of 2013, this court has passed an order on 13.1.2014 which is quoted hereinbelow: "On perusal of the provision as contained 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 find 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 exted up to 3 years and with a find 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 find 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 Bouine 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 is that, if a person is found guilty, Section 12(3) of the Act would come into play and the vehicle will be liable to be forfeited to the State Government. What can be culled out from the aforesaid order is that, if a person is found guilty, Section 12(3) of the Act would come into play and the vehicle will be liable to be forfeited to the State Government. The learned courts below has thus passed the order on misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act. 7. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.3.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sahibganj in connection with Barhaite P. S. Case No. 58 of 2015 and dated 17.11.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2016 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj to pass a fresh order on release application of the vehicle of the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. It is made clear that while considering the release application of the petitioner Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 shall not come in the way of the learned Judicial Magistrate if the petitioner ultimately proves himself as the owner of the vehicle in question. 9. This application stands allowed.