Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 30 (CHH)

J. Sravan S/o Gopal v. State of C. G.

2025-01-14

ARVIND KUMAR VERMA

body2025
Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. CRMP No.3483 of 2024 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 by the petitioner assailing the order dated 07/12/2024 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, C.G. in CRR No.316/2024 whereby the order dated 02/12/2024 passed by the JMFC, Durg, C.G. in criminal case No.22511 of 2024 rejecting the application for supurdnama filed by the petitioner, has been affirmed. 2. CRMP No.3486 of 2024 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 by the petitioner assailing the order dated 07/12/2024 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, C.G. in CRR No.317/2024 whereby the order dated 02/12/2024 passed by the JMFC, Durg, C.G. in criminal case No.22511 of 2024 rejecting the application for supurdnama filed by the petitioner, has been affirmed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the owners of the truck bearing No.TN 73 AJ 0178 & TN 29CW 7345. The milking animals with calf were purchased by Goshale Foundation charitable trust from Sharda Dairy Food Products Ltd. Raipur. After purchasing the animals the vehicle of the petitioners were booked through transporter for transporting the animals from Raipur to Bengaluru, Karnataka and for that the vehicle of the petitioners were engaged through the transporter. After completion of the requisite documentation and receiving of the bills regarding the animals, health certificates with insurance papers, the petitioners loading the animals on their trucks and started from Raipur to Bangaluru. While the petitioners were crossing Bhilai, meanwhile the police team and some civilians stopped the trucks of the petitioners and asked about the animals. The petitioners and the employees of the purchasers showed all the documents regarding transporting permit, insurance papers, documents relating to the animals and animals insurance papers. Thereafter, the money was demanded from the petitioners and on being denied, the petitioners were taken to the police station along with the trucks and animals and the offence was registered against the petitioners and others and they all were taken in custody. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners and others were produced before the concerned Magistrate for the alleged offence under Section 4, 6 & 10 of the C.G. Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act , 2014 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act , 1960. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners and others were produced before the concerned Magistrate for the alleged offence under Section 4, 6 & 10 of the C.G. Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act , 2014 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act , 1960. The petitioners were subsequently released on bail. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed and an application for supurdnama of the Trucks bearing registration Nos.TN 73 AJ 0178 & TN 29 CW 7345 were filed before the JMFC Durg, which was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred revisions before the Sessions Court, Durg, the were also rejected by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, C.G. Hence these petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the milking animals were purchased by the Trust for Milk only and the same were purchased from Raipur, therefore, they were being transported and for the said purpose the trucks of the petitioners were engaged and the petitioners are the transporters, therefore, no offence has been committed by the petitioners. He would next contend that the bills and documents relating to animals were seized by the respondent but the same has not been filed along with the charge sheet. He would next contend that the petitioners are the registered owners of the seized vehicles i.e. the Trucks which is machinery article and if the same are detained without proper place of parking it would be ruined and the petitioners are facing economical hardships for paying EMI and other expenses, therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside and the trucks of the petitioners may be released on Supurdnama. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. A careful persual of the impugned orders and other documents annexed with the petitions would show that the prosecution or the investigating agency have not placed on record any document to show that petitinoers’ vehicles were being used to transport the cattles for the purpose of slaughtering in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 2014. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 , in para 7 and 17 has laid down guiding principles for releasing the vehicle seized by police. For ready reference, the relevant portion is reproduced below:- “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely: 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepare, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of property in detail; 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police station for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.” 10.Similar stand has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2013 (3) SCC 240 , wherein the Supreme Court has expressed that it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the Police Station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions for a long period. 11.In the instant case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no useful purpose would be served if the vehicles are allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the vehicles can be released to the petitioners, who are claiming themselves to be the owner of the vehicles. 11.In the instant case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no useful purpose would be served if the vehicles are allowed to get exposed in the extreme weather conditions in the Police Station, rather the vehicles can be released to the petitioners, who are claiming themselves to be the owner of the vehicles. It is also pertinent to mention here that in this case it is found that the vehicles are left for natural decay for a long period of time and no substantive action has been taken and the vehicles are still left for irreparable damages. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai (supra), the instant petitions are allowed and the order dated 07/12/2024 & 02/12/2024 passed by the Courts below are hereby set-aside. It is directed that the Truck bearing registration No. TN 73 AJ 0178 be released in favour of the petitioner Janak Raj M & Truck bearing registration No. TN 29 CW 7345 be released in favour of the petitioner J. Sarvan, as interim custody on the following conditions:- (i) Before release of the vehicles, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicle be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicles be made. (ii) Photographs of the vehicles should be taken and bond should also be produced that the vehicles would be produced as and when required. (iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle from each petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, both the petitions are allowed.