Mohd. Irfan vs State Of U.P And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 25112 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179704
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43305 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Mohd. Irfan
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Khalil,Lal Babu Lal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching quashing of the order dated 7.6.2022 passed by the District and Session Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 328 of 2022 affirming the order dated 5.5.2022 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), District Meerut in Case No. 678 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. D202211520000678), State Vs. Mohammad Irfan) under Section 5(Ka) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in brevity, Cow Slaughter Act) arising out of Case Crime No. 0369 of 2021, under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act.

3. As per FIR version, on receiving information from the informer, the police party has intercepted the vehicle in question i.e. Mahindra Bulero Pickup bearing registration No. DL 1LP 6331 and recovered one cow, whose legs and mouth were fastened with rope. As per the statement made by the accused, arrested on the spot, they were transporting the cow for the purpose of slaughter. The aforesaid vehicle was confiscated under the Cow Slaughter Act. During the pendency of the present prosecution, the owner of the vehicle in question has moved an application for release of the aforesaid vehicle. Learned Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut has rejected the application on the ground that the vehicle in question was used for illegal slaughtering of the cow and no unimpeachable evidence is adduced to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, therefore, the application is rejected. Having been aggrieved, the present applicant has preferred a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 328 of 2022. The learned Session Judge, Meerut has dismissed the revision on the ground of maintainability vide impugned order dated 7.6.2022. Having been aggrieved, the present applicant (owner of the vehicle in question) has moved the instant application assailing both the orders.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no beef or any other objectionable material has been recovered from the vehicle in question. The police has indicated in the FIR that the knife and rope were recovered from the possession of the accused but the same have deliberately been planted for the purpose of making false case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle of the applicant was not used in the alleged crime and has falsely been implicated in the matter. It is further submitted that the involvement of the vehicle in question in the commission of the alleged offence i.e. transportation of cow for the purpose of slaughtering, in violation of the Cow Slaughter Act, is yet to be adjudicated upon by the trial court after thorough examination and appraisal of the evidence available on record. Therefore, till the pendency of the proceeding under the Cow Slaughter Act, there is no justification to keep the vehicle in question under the custody of the police. It is further submitted that for the past two years, the vehicle in question has been left exposed in vulnerable state in the open field at the police station, rendering it susceptible to deterioration over time. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the vehicle in question, which is a case property, may be released in favour of the owner of the vehicle and if the case property i.e. vehicle in question is required for any enquiry, the present applicant will produce the same before the court competent. Ultimately, learned counsel submits that the applicant is ready to deposit the surety against the confiscated vehicle, which is the case property. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638.

5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submission as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and supported the judgment passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) and the revisional court. It is contended that, prima facie, the involvement of the present vehicle in question in the commission of alleged crime cannot be ruled out.

6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal the documents available on record, it reveals that no finding has been recorded by the court below questioning the ownership of the present applicant over the vehicle in question i.e. Mahindra Bulero Pickup bearing registration No. DL 1LP 6331 and also keeping in view the fact that since the date of confiscation of the aforesaid vehicle, same is lying exposed in open area in the custody of police station and the possibility of deterioration of the vehicle due to passage of time cannot be ruled out and further adjudication of the matter with respect to violation of the provisions as enunciated under the Cow Slaughter Act is still pending consideration and also the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), I am of the view that there is no justification to keep the vehicle in question in the police custody and the same is liable to be released in favour the applicant, which is the case property in the aforementioned case crime, particularly considering the fact that no other person namely insurance company or any third party came forward to claim ownership of the vehicle in question. The relevant paragraphs of the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) is quoted herein below:

"17. In our view, 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. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared."

7. In this conspectus, as above, I am of the considered view that the present application is liable to be entertained and the release order is liable to be passed to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the order dated 7.6.2022 passed by the District and Session Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 328 of 2022 affirming the order dated 5.5.2022 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), District Meerut in Case No. 678 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. D202211520000678), State Vs. Mohammad Irfan) under Section 5(Ka) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 arising out of Case Crime No. 0369 of 2021, under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act are hereby quashed with following conditions:

(i) Applicant shall produce the original registration certificate, insurance paper before the concerned Police Station which shall be verified properly and true attested copies thereof.

(ii) Applicant shall execute a bond as per market value of the vehicle with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the authorities/court concerned.

(iii) Applicant shall keep the vehicle insured at all times till the conclusion of the trial and produce the Insurance Certificate before the Trial Court as and when required; he must satisfy the Court that he is the registered owner of the vehicle.

(iv) Applicant shall not change the colour or any part of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle, without prior permission of the court concerned.

(v) Applicant shall produce the vehicle either before the Court or before such other authorities as the Court may direct.

(vi) Applicant will not transfer the vehicle to anybody else nor possession of the same be parted with until disposal of the case.

(vii) Applicant shall not allow the vehicle to be used in the commission of any offence.

Order Date :- 18.9.2023

vinay