Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 221 (JHR)

Juel Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2022-02-23

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard through V.C. 2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned amicus for the petitioner No.1 and Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. 3. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 06.06.2012, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Simdega in T. Tangar P.S. Case No.53 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No.382 of 2006, T.R. No.4 of 2011, whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Sections 12 (2) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (One thousand) each and in default of payment of fine petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; has been sustained. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.10.2006 at about 6.00 P.M. the informant was standing at the front of his door along with his neighbours. In the meantime he noticed four persons coming with 19 cows and calves from jungle side and then they suspected that they are being taken for the purpose of slaughtering and sale of their skin and flesh and they all were chased and two persons were arrested by the villagers namely Chand Manjhi and Juel Oraon. The apprehended persons disclosed the name of their associates who escaped from the scene as Shaukat and Imteyaz. It was further disclosed by the apprehended persons that the cows and calves in question were purchased by Imteyaz and Shaukat for the purpose of slaughtering them and they had been hired to carry the cattle for the wages of Rs.150. All cows along with apprehended persons were produced before the police. 5. On the basis of the written report of the informant the First Information Report was lodged under Sections 4, 4 (A) and 12 (2) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 (Hereinafter referred as the Act, 2005). 6. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted the chargesheet and the petitioners pleaded not guilty and were sent up for trial. In order to prove the case the prosecution has produced altogether 8 witnesses in which P.W. 8 was the informant. 6. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted the chargesheet and the petitioners pleaded not guilty and were sent up for trial. In order to prove the case the prosecution has produced altogether 8 witnesses in which P.W. 8 was the informant. The learned trial court after dealing with the evidence both oral and documentary convicted the petitioners for the charge under Section 12 (2) of the Act and sentenced them accordingly. Being aggrieved the petitioners challenged the trial court order before the appellate court. However, the same was confirmed. 7. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Amicus for the petitioner No.1, assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 assailed the impugned order on three counts: a) Seizure has not been made by the competent authority as provided under Section 10(3) of the Act inasmuch as the seizure has been done by the Assistant Sub Inspector which is against the mandate of Section 10(3) of the Act. b) Seizure list has not been signed by the accused persons leading to the conclusion that factum of seizure is not proved. c) Flesh and skin etc. of the animals were not produced before the Court so as to prove that there is some violation of the Act. 8. He further submits that for no offence the petitioners remained in custody for several days. However, due to the lacuna in the impugned judgment the same requires interference. 9. Md. Hatim, learned APP submits that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below as such no interference is required. However, Mr. Hatim, could not dispute the fact that seizure has been done by Assistant Sub Inspector who was not competent. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the lower court records it appears that the learned trial court has committed gross error in ignoring the specific provision with regard to seizure under the Act. 11. Hatim, could not dispute the fact that seizure has been done by Assistant Sub Inspector who was not competent. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the lower court records it appears that the learned trial court has committed gross error in ignoring the specific provision with regard to seizure under the Act. 11. For brevity, Section 10 (3) of the Act is quoted herein below: “Section 10(3): Any police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector or any person authorized in this behalf by the State Government may with a view to securing compliance with the provision of the Section 4 (a) and Section 4 (b) or for satisfying himself that the provision of the said section has been complied with- (a) enter, stop and search or authorize any person to enter, stop and search any vehicle used or intended to be used in the export of bovine animals. (b) Seize or authorize the seizure of bovine animals in respect of which he suspects that any provisions of section 4 (a) or 4 (b) has been, is being or is about to be contravened, along with the vehicle in which such animals are found and thereafter take or authorise the taking of all necessary measures for securing the production of the animals and vehicle so seized, in a court and for their safe custody pending production. (c) The provisions of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (no.2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to search and seizures under this section. Provided further that the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette confer the power under this Act upon any person or group of persons considered to be acting in public interest.” 12. After going through the aforesaid Section it clearly transpires that any seizure has to be done not by the person who is below the rank of Sub Inspector and in the instant case admittedly the seizure has been done by the Assistant Sub Inspector and this vital lacuna has been ignored by the learned trial court. 13. It further transpires from record that seizure list has not been signed by the accused persons and consequently, the factum of seizure is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt. 13. It further transpires from record that seizure list has not been signed by the accused persons and consequently, the factum of seizure is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has further erred that production of flesh and skin was necessary in order to prove the charge under the Act. 14. In view of the aforesaid lacuna the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court deserves to be set aside. Interestingly, the learned appellate court has also not considered all these aspects of the matter as such the same also deserves to be quashed. Consequently, the judgment dated 6th June, 2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2011 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Simdega and also the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 03.05.2011 passed in T. Tangar P.S. Case No.53 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. No. 382 of 2006, T.R. No. 4 of 2011, by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Simdega is hereby, quashed and set aside. The petitioners are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 15. The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned amicus for petitioner No.1 and Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.2 & 3, who have prepared meticulous notes on prosecution evidence and produced copies of the judgments. 16. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Amicus on submission of bill(s) for this case as per the Notification dated 23.11.2017. 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and the petitioners. 18. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.