Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2429 (RAJ)

Chatarpal v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-13

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.06.2021 passed by learned District Collector, Churu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Collector') whereby petitioner's application under Section 451/457 of the Code for release of his vehicle has been rejected. 2. Briefly narrated, the facts relevant for the present purposes are that on 08.04.2021, a vehicle (HR-45-C-8336) was intercepted and upon inspection it was revealed that the same was carrying 11 cows and 5 calves to be transported to a slaughter house. 3. After the charge-sheet had been filed, the petitioner moved an application under Sections 451/457 of the Code and prayed that his vehicle (Ashok Leyland - Ecomet) be released on 'Supurdginama'. 4. The Collector, however, rejected petitioner's application inter alia observing that since it was used for the offence under the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1995'), it is liable for confiscation under Section 6A of the Act of 1995 and if the vehicle is released, the same would frustrate the object of Section 6A of the Act of 1995. 5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner requires the vehicle in question for his work and if the same is not released on 'Supurdginama', the petitioner's right will be prejudicially affected, as no other court, Tribunal or any other Authority can order release of the vehicle. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petitioner's prayer and argued that the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under Section 6A of the Act of 1995 and if the Court proposes to order release of the vehicle, then, the petitioner may be directed to furnish a bank guarantee equal to the value of the vehicle so that if the competent authority ultimately passes an order of confiscation of the vehicle, its possession is assured or else at least amount to the extent of its value is secured. 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.06.2021, reveals that the Collector has rejected petitioner's application for releasing the vehicle essentially in the face of provisions contained in Section 6A of the Act of 1995. 9. 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.06.2021, reveals that the Collector has rejected petitioner's application for releasing the vehicle essentially in the face of provisions contained in Section 6A of the Act of 1995. 9. Before delving into the correctness and propriety of the impugned order, it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the relevant statutory provisions involved in the present case, namely, Section 6A of the Act of 1995, which reads thus: '6-A. Confiscation of the means of conveyance.-(1) Whenever an offence punishable under this Act is committed, any means of conveyance used in the commission of such offence shall be liable to confiscation. (2) Where any means of conveyance referred to in sub-section (1) is seized in connection with the commission of any offence punishable under this Act, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made by the person seizing it to the Competent Authority and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for commission of such offence, the Competent Authority, having jurisdiction over the area where the said means of conveyance was seized, may, if satisfied that the said means of conveyance was used for commission of offence under this Act, order confiscation of the said means of conveyance: Provided that before ordering confiscation of the said means of conveyance a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the owner of the said means of conveyance and if such owner satisfies the Competent Authority that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being or likely to be committed and he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence, the Competent Authority may not confiscate the said means of conveyance: Provided further that where such means of conveyance is owned by the Central Government or any State Government or any of their undertaking, no order of confiscation of such means of conveyance shall be passed by the Competent Authority and the matter shall be referred to the State Government by the Competent Authority for making such orders regarding means of conveyance as the State Government may deem fit: Provided also that before ordering confiscation under this sub-section, the owner of the means of conveyance referred to in sub-section (1), may be given an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price of such means of conveyance: Provided also that an owner of a means of conveyance shall not be given option under the preceding proviso, if he had been given option under that proviso at an earlier occasion. (3) Whenever any means of conveyance as referred to in sub-section (1) is seized in connection with commission of an offence under this Act, the Competent Authority shall have, and notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to make order with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal or release of such means of conveyance. (4) Where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that it is expedient in public interest or for the benefit of its owner that the means of conveyance, as referred to in sub-section (1), seized for commission of offence under this Act be sold by public auction, he may at any time direct it to be sold. (5) Any order of confiscation made by the Competent Authority shall not prevent the infliction of any punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under this Act." 10. A simple look at the provisions of Section 6A of the Act of 1995 shows that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, if the same is used in commission of an offence punishable under the Act of 1995. Hence, releasing the vehicle or giving its custody to the petitioner on supurdginama will defeat the mandate of Section 6A of the Act of 1995. 11. But then, keeping the vehicle in police custody will also not be conducive. It will serve no cause. By the time trial is over, the condition of the vehicle lying idle and unattended will deteriorate and deplete to such an extent that it would fetch no price, if it is confiscated and offered for sale. 12. This Court is of the view that if the petitioner is directed to furnish FDR in the name of the District Collector, Churu, it will safeguard the interest of the State so also of the petitioner. In case an order of confiscation is passed and the vehicle is not surrendered, the State can be compensated/indemnified by the amount lying in the FDR and if no order of confiscation is passed, the amount lying in the FDR would be returned back along with the applicable interest. 13. It is informed that current market value of the vehicle (Ashok Leyland - Ecomet) based on its insurance cover note is Rs. 11,25,000/-. 14. For the reasons stated above; the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.06.2021, is quashed and set aside. 15. The Collector is directed to release the vehicle in question on 'Supurdginama' (HR-45-C-8336) to the petitioner, subject however to a condition that he submits an FDR of Rs. 11,00,000/- (valid for one year) issued by some nationalized bank drawn in favour of District Collector, Churu. 16. The impugned order dated 23.06.2021, is quashed and set aside. 15. The Collector is directed to release the vehicle in question on 'Supurdginama' (HR-45-C-8336) to the petitioner, subject however to a condition that he submits an FDR of Rs. 11,00,000/- (valid for one year) issued by some nationalized bank drawn in favour of District Collector, Churu. 16. The petitioner shall be required to furnish an undertaking before the Collector to the effect that as and when the vehicle is required during trial, he shall produce the same before the trial Court apart from other usual conditions of not creating third party rights, changing the colour etc. 17. The final order of release of vehicle/FDR so furnished, shall be passed only in case the competent authority holds that the vehicle in question is not liable to be confiscated. In case, the vehicle is ordered to be confiscated, then amount of FDR shall be forfeited. 18. In case proceedings for confiscation are not initiated within a period of one year from today, the FDRs so furnished shall be returned to the petitioner. 19. The stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.