Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1233 (GAU)

SOLEMAN KHAN v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-08-21

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. None appeared for the petitioner on call. I have heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Criminal Revision No. 22(1)/2009. 3. Police seized 16 numbers of buffalo, 12 numbers of bulls and 12 numbers of goats along with the challans, medical and other relevant documents pertaining to the said cattle in connection with GD entry No. 174 dated 06.11.2008 and had given in custody of the petitioner, from whose possession the cattle were seized. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri for releasing the seized cattle claiming that he was the owner of the cattle. Upon such application of the petitioner, learned CJM called for a report from the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station. Pursuant to the above order of the learned CJM, police submitted a report. On 25.11.2008, learned CJM passed an order releasing the said seized cattle in favour of the petitioner. The police was also directed by the said order to submit a report apprising the court whether any FIR was lodged in respect of the seized cattle and in the event of lodging any FIR, alleging commission of any offence in respect of the said cattle, the police was further directed to give custody of the said cattle to a third party. Thereafter, on 02.12.2008, police submitted a report stating that no FIR was lodged in respect of seized cattle and on the basis of said report, learned CJM disposed of the matter finally. 4. Against the said order of the learned CJM, whereby the miscellaneous proceeding was closed and the cattle were released in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri. Learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order set aside the order passed by the learned CJM with the observation that learned CJM ought not to have closed the matter, rather should have monitored the investigation, inasmuch as, the police report discloses sufficient ground for intervention in the matter under Section 4 of Cattle Trespass Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 6. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 6. Apparently, Section 4 of the Cattle Trespass Act deals with establishment of pound for impounding of cattle seized under Section 10 & 11 of the Act and the offences under the said act are non-cognizable and as such, the police could not have register a case or investigate any offence under Cattle Trespass Act. Apparently, in the instant case, the cattle were seized from the possession of the petitioner, who also claimed to be the owner having all necessary documents. Though, the cattle were seized from the petitioner by police on the basis of a GD entry, no FIR was lodged by anyone, alleging commission of any offence in respect of the said cattle and as such, learned CJM directed release of the cattle in favour of the petitioner, from whom they were seized. The investigation is obviously an act within the purview of the police and court cannot interfere with such investigation unless any illegality is committed by the police. Though, court can monitor the investigation of a case, the court cannot direct the police to investigate case in a particular way or from any particular angle. In the present case, when apparently there was no case registered in respect of the cattle seized, there was no question of monitoring the investigation and as such the order passed by the learned CJM, in my considered view, did not suffer from any illegality calling for interference in the revision by the learned Sessions Judge. When there was no criminal case against the petitioner or in respect of the cattle and police also failed to show that any offence was committed, there was no option left out for the learned CJM, but to release seized cattle in favour of the petitioner, who had all necessary documents in respect of the seized cattle and in that view of the matter, I do not find any plausible reason for the revisional court to interfere in the order passed by the learned CJM, which did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. 7. Being of the above view, the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Criminal Revision No. 22(1)/2009 is hereby set aside and the revision is allowed. 8. Send down the LCR.