Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 25543 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182094
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15025 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Santosh Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

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

2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Crl. Revision No.113 of 2022 affirming the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No.485 of 2021 (Computer Case No.D202114180000485) (State Vs. Vaish Mohammad and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.0231 of 2020, under Section 5(A) of The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (in brevity Cow Slaughter Act).

3. An FIR, being Case Crime No.0231 of 2020 dated 04.12.2020, has been lodged by the Police Inspector levelling allegation of transportation of cow progenies in violation of the Cow Slaughter Act with an averment that on information received from the informant the police team has intercepted the vehicle in question i.e. truck bearing registration No. UP 70 ET 3070, which was used for transportation of the 23 cow progenies which includes 8 cows and 15 bulls. From the spot four persons were apprehended who have admitted that these cow progenies were transported to Bihar and West Bengal for the purposes of slaughter. It is further alleged in the FIR that all the cow progenies were found in the pathetic condition and their mouth and legs were tied by ropes.

4. During pendency of proceeding present applicant has moved an application for release of the vehicle in question i.e. truck bearing registration No. UP 70 ET 3070 claiming himself as a registered owner of the said vehicle. Release application moved on behalf of the present applicant was rejected by learned District Magistrate by order impugned dated 25.07.2022. Having been aggrieved present applicant has preferred revision before learned Sessions Judge, being Crl. Revision No.113 of 2022. Learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the aforesaid revision as well affirming the order passed by learned District Magistrate with an observation that transportation of the cow progenies in a pathetic condition for the purposes of slaughter through the vehicle in question is manifested from the record and nothing has been shown adverse, therefore, no ground is made out for release of the vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of occurrence of incident as mentioned in the FIR vehicle in question was run under the control of Mr. Amit Lal to whom present applicant (owner of the vehicle) has handed over the vehicle with a condition that he will deposit the EMI of the loan and maintain the vehicle. It is further submitted that applicant was neither apprehended from the spot nor named in the FIR. At later stage, his name was emerged, consequently, he was arraigned as an accused in charge sheet. It is further submitted that the truck in question was not plying by the present applicant at the time of occurrence of the crime as alleged in the FIR. The alleged transportation of the cow progenies through vehicle in question in violation of the provision as enunciated under the Cow Slaughter Act is still to be adjudicated upon by the court competent after appraisal of the evidence to be adduced by the parties. It is further submitted that vehicle in question has been confiscated and kept under the police custody being a case property. Since the date of alleged incident i.e. 04.12.2020 the vehicle is lying in open space in vulnerable position in the police station. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the vehicle in question, which is a case property, may be released in favour of it's owner and if the 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.

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

7. 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. truck bearing registration No. UP 70 ET 3070. 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."

8. 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 15.02.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Crl. Revision No.113 of 2022 and the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No.485 of 2021 (Computer Case No.D202114180000485) (State Vs. Vaish Mohammad and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.0231 of 2020, under Section 5(A) of The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 are quashed and vehicle in question is hereby release 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 :- 20.9.2023

Md Faisal