HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2204 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the order dated 12.02.2021 in Crl.M.P. No.3 of 2021 in Cr.No.427 of 2020 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, and also for consequential direction to release of the crime vehicle.
2. Heard Mr. Y. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State. Perused the entire material on record.
3. The petitioner herein is the registered owner of the Crime Vehicle (Ashok Leyland Goods Carrier) bearing registration No.KA55 2578, which was seized by the Station House Officer, Chevella Police Station in Crime No.427 of 2020 registered for the offences under Sections - 5, 6 and 10 read with 11 of the Telangana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 (for short 'Act, 1977') and also Section 11(A) of the Act, 1977 against the accused therein. He is not the accused in the said crime.
4. The petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the said crime vehicle filed an application under Section - 451 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.3 of 2021 in the said crime. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application vide order dated 12.02.2021 on the KL,J Crl.P. No.2204 of 2021 2 grounds that 32 bullocks and 2 buffalos were being transported in the said crime vehicle to slaughter house without following precautions as per the Animals Rules, such as not providing food and water properly etc. and also against the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja1.
5. In Animal Welfare Board of India1, the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the rights of animals and welfare etc., and also the dignity of the animals and the violations of the same by the Organizers of the Jallikattu in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Apex Court further held that right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to animals as well. There is no consideration of release of vehicle in the said judgment. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the present case is with regard to release of vehicle sought by the owner of vehicle which was denied by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order.
6. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat2, the Apex Court held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations 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. But, the trial Court did 1 . (2014) 7 SCC 547 2 . (2002) 10 SCC 283 KL,J Crl.P. No.2204 of 2021 3 not consider the principle laid down by the Apex Court. The trial Court did not assign any cogent reasons in dismissing the petition except giving the aforesaid reasons which are general in nature. Moreover, if the vehicle is kept open exposing to the Sun and rain etc., there is every possibility of getting damage to the vehicle.
7. In General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Apex Court has issued further directions to be followed apart from the directions given by it in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai2, which are as follows:
"(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdictional Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified, and a detailed panchnama may be prepared before such release.
(B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with.
(C) Insurer would submit an undertaking / guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the insurer. The undertaking/guarantee would be 3 . (2010) 6 SCC 768 KL,J Crl.P. No.2204 of 2021 4 furnished at the time of release of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer."
8. The Photostat copy of the certificate of registration filed by the petitioner would reveal that he is the registered owner of the crime vehicle. The learned Magistrate did not consider the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai2 as well as in General Insurance Council3. In view of the above said discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is not well- reasoned and well-founded and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The order dated 12.02.2021 in Crl.M.P. No.3 of 2021 in Cr.No.427 of 2020 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, is quashed and the Learned Magistrate is directed to release the crime vehicle to the petitioner as an interim custody on imposition of certain conditions to its satisfaction and on proper identification and verification of ownership and under acknowledgment.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 29th April, 2021 Mgr