JUDGMENT : 1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by Smt. Garima Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Gorhar P.S. Case No. 10 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 446 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the application for release of the truck bearing registration No. JH-02Y/5522 had been rejected. 2. An FIR was instituted with respect to seizure of two trucks bearing registration Nos. NL-02K/8244 and JH02Y/5522 in which bovine animals were being transported for the purposes of slaughtering. Accordingly, Gorhar P.S. Case No. 10 of 2015 was instituted for the offence under Section 414 of the IPC, Section 4/5 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 3. Since the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the truck bearing registration No. JH-02Y /5522 which was seized by the police, an application for its release was preferred by him on 11.9.2015 and vide order dated 20.11.2015, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh was pleased to reject the said application. 4. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned APP for the State. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 20.11.2015 by submitting that it was incumbent upon the learned Judicial Magistrate to have released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner in view of Section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It has been submitted that the vehicle could only be forfeited for contravention of any provision of the Act only on the trial Court coming to a conclusion that the petitioner was involved in. the illegal transportation of the cattle and Section 12 of the Act prohibits forfeiture of the vehicle at the pre-conviction stage. Learned counsel in this context has also referred to the definition of criminal forfeiture as indicated in the Black's Law Dictionary. the illegal transportation of the cattle and Section 12 of the Act prohibits forfeiture of the vehicle at the pre-conviction stage. Learned counsel in this context has also referred to the definition of criminal forfeiture as indicated in the Black's Law Dictionary. It has also been submitted that the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Rules framed pursuant to Section 20 of the Act includes Section 4(D) and in such circumstances when the trial itself has not started for contravention with respect to the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and the role of the petitioner has not yet been ascertained it would be proper to release the vehicle as the same being kept in the open would suffer from vagaries of weather leading to irreparable loss to the petitioner. While substantiating his argument learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order passed by this Court in Cri. M.P. No. 2862 of 2013 on 13.1.2014. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy learned APP submits that the FIR itself reveals that bovine animals were being illegally transported for the purposes of slaughtering in the trucks one of which belongs to the petitioner and in view of the specific contravention of the provision of Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly rejected the application for release filed on behalf of the petitioner. 7. To appreciate the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to refer to the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act 2005. The powers of entry search and seizure have been referred to in Section 10 of the Act and for the purposes of considering the rival contentions it would be apt to quote sub-section (3) of Section 10 which reads as under : 1. ................. 2. .................. 3. The powers of entry search and seizure have been referred to in Section 10 of the Act and for the purposes of considering the rival contentions it would be apt to quote sub-section (3) of Section 10 which reads as under : 1. ................. 2. .................. 3. "Prohibition of slaughter of bovine animals.-(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any usage or custom to the contrary no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter any bovine animal; (b) The State Government may by general or special order and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to exempt any person or institute from the operation of this Act as allow the slaughter of any bovine animal or the possession of flesh thereof for any medical or research purpose." 8. Section 10(3) (b) clearly defines that for contravention of Section 4(a) or 4(b) the vehicle which has been found to be used in such transportation be seized and to be produced in a Court for its safe custody. The aforesaid provisions specifically relates to Section 4 (A) and 4(B) of the Act. Section 4(A) of the Act lays down that “no person shall export or cause to be exported any bovine animals for the purposes of slaughter either directly or through his agent or servant or any person acting on his behalf in contravention of the provisions of the Act or with a knowledge that it will be or is likely to be slaughter." Section 4(D) of the Act deals with transit permits and the same reads as under : "4-D. Transit Permits.-Any person who wants to transport any bovine animal from one State to other via Jharkhand State must take transit permit from competent authority notified by the Government from time to time." 9. The penal provisions have been envisaged in Section 12 of the Act and the same is quoted hereinunder : "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 at tempts 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." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a vehicle- as such in connection with transportation of bovine animals for the purposes of their slaughter cannot be forfeited at the preconviction stage. Section 12(2) of the Act deals with conviction on contravention or abetting the contravention of any of the provisions of sub-section of Section 4 and the sentence which can be inflicted may extend up to 3 years and with a fine which may extend up to 5,000/- rupees. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 - relates to forfeiture of the vehicle in favour of the State Government when the same has been found to be used in transportation of cattle or contravening any provision of this Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to correlate sub-section (2) of Section 12 and sub-section (3) of Section 12 to suggest that the steps for forfeiture of the vehicle at the initial stage of its seizure when the matter itself is still pending is not permissible in view of the said specific provisions. 11. To appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to consider the allegations which have been levelled in the FIR with respect to transportation of cattle. The FIR discloses that on being apprehended the drivers of the truck had disclosed that the cattle were being transported from Nawada and Garhwa to Parwa in the State of West Bengal. On being questioned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cattle were being transported from the State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal via the State of Jharkhand. On being questioned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cattle were being transported from the State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal via the State of Jharkhand. In such circumstances, therefore, Section 4(D) of the Act comes into play. Section 4(D) of the Act clearly lays down that in case of transportation of any bovine animal from one State to the other via the State of Jharkhand, the persons so transporting must take transit permit from the competent authority notified by the Government from time to time. The penal provisions as depicted in Section 12 of the Act include conviction for contravention of the provisions of Section 3, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 4(A) and Section 4(B) of the Act. It is thus abundantly clear that Section 12 does not include penalty for violation of the provisions as contained in Section 4(D) of the Act. Since the bovine animals were being transported from one State to the another via the State of Jharkhand in terms of the allegation made in the FIR the person making such inter-State transport requires as per Section 4(D) of the Act a transit permit and since violation of Section 4(D) of the Act does not come within Section 12 of the Act, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect of forfeiture in the absence of power on the part of the State Government for forfeiture of the vehicle at pre-conviction stage gets negated. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the definition of criminal forfeiture as given in Black's Law Dictionary and the same reads as under : "Criminal Forfeiture.-A governmental proceeding brought against a person to seize property as punishment for the person's criminal behavior," 13. As has been discussed above, there is no bar for the State authorities to initiate confiscation proceeding for confiscating the vehicle which was transporting cattle in contravention of the provisions of the Act and in view of the specific omission of Section 4(d) of the Act in the penal provisions depicted in Section 12 of the Act, the State authorities are within their jurisdiction to start such proceedings. 14. Mr. 14. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the rules being Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Rules, 2011 which have been formulated pursuant to Section 20 of the Act and he has referred to Rule 6 which includes Section 4(D) and for violation of which, a person can be punished under Section 12 of the Act. He has submitted that in view of the specific inclusion of Section 4(D) of the Act in Rule 6 of the Rules, the same automatically prevents the State authorities at the pre-conviction stage to take steps for forfeiture of the vehicle. Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Rules, 2011 has sought to include Section 4(D) within the purview of Section 12 of the Act. The rules so framed cannot override the provisions of the Act or the intention of the Legislature. A rule can only be made for carrying out the purpose of the Act. A rule framed cannot override the statutory power of the authority or dilute the specific provisions of the Act. A rule which is inconsistent with any provision of the Act to the extent it is inconsistent must yield to the provisions of the Act. Section 12 is silent with respect to Section 4(D) of the Act and such absence or omission cannot be allowed been circumvented or substituted by any provision included in the rules. 15. In the circumstances, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Rule 6 of the Rules is also rejected. So far as judgment which has to be referred to by the learned, counsel for the petitioner, i.e., Cr. M.P. No. 2862 of 2013 is concerned, the facts in the said case does not disclosed whether the bovine animals were being transported within the State of Jharkhand or the transportation was inter-State via the State of Jharkhand. In such circumstances, the said judgment would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. 16. As a cumulative result of the discussions made hereinabove, both factual and legal, I am not inclined to entertain this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.