Tirathnath vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1535 Chatt

                                              1

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  CRMP No. 789 of 2021

       Tirathnath S/o Ganpat Yadav Aged About 65 Years Caste Ahir, R/o Village
         Semra, Pandrapath, P.S. And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

                                                                             ---- Petitioner

                                          Versus

       State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Jashpur, District Jashpur
        Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Respondent



         For Petitioner               :      Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate

         For Respondents/State        :      Shri Arijit Tiwari, PL


                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOUTAM BHADURI

                                          ORDER

24/03/2022

Heard.

1. The instant petition is against the dismissal of a revision vide order dated

29.07.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge Jashpur in Criminal Revision

No.04/2021, which was filed against the order dated 07.07.2021 in Criminal

Case No.22/2021 by the J.M.F.C. Bagicha, District Jashpur by which the

application for custody of the vehicle was refused to the petitioner.

2. As per the prosecution case, crime No.122/2021 was registered under Section

4, 6 & 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004. The

cattles were being carried to the slaughter house as such the vehicle bearing

registration No.C.G.-15-AC-1143 wherein the cattles were being transported

was seized.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner

of the vehicle, which was alleged to be involved in commission of crime under

the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (for short "the Act,

2004"). He submits that after seizure of the vehicle on 24.06.2021, the bar of

sub-section 3 of Section 6 of the Act, 2004 would not apply and no purpose

would be served while keeping the vehicle in custody; consequently, the same

may be released.

4. Reply of the State is filed.

5. Perused the documents. Perusal of the documents would show that as per the

order of the JMFC, Bagicha the vehicle was seized on 24.06.2021, thereafter,

the application was filed for custody of the vehicle which was dismissed on

07.07.2021 and subsequently the revision having been filed the same was

also dismissed on 29.07.2021. With the efflux of time during the pendency of

the proceedings six months have been passed as on today.

6. Since the case was under the Act, 2004, sub-section 3 of Section 6 would be

relevant, which is reproduced herein below :

"6 (3). The vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-section (2) shall not be released by the order of the court on bond or surety before the expiry of six months from the date of such seizure or till the final judgment of the court, whichever is earlier and such vehicle shall also be liable for confiscation at the end of the trial."

7. In this case, the vehicle was seized in the month of June, 2021 and therefore,

while deciding the issue as on today the factum of seizure which was already

way back took place in the month of June, 2021 six months have passed and

the final judgment as per the reply of the State has not yet been passed till

date.

8. Considering the facts of this case, the bar of sub-section 3 of Section 6 of the

Act, 2004 would not apply and the vehicle as appears is lying at the disposal

of the authorities or at police station. Therefore, if it is kept in the police station

it must be occupying space or is prone to cause natural decay and may loose

its road worthiness when kept in stationery position. In context of subject

matter the principle laid down in case of General Insurance Council and

others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 6 SCC

768 which has earlier reiterated principle laid down in case of Sunderbhai

Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, wherein

it is held that keeping the vehicle in stationery position at the police station

would not serve any purpose except the decay of it's value interim custody of

the vehicle can be handed over. Reply of the State is silent as to whether any

confiscation proceeding has been commenced or not. In the facts of this case,

keeping the vehicle for period indefinite in police station will destroy very

nature of the vehicle as it may turn junk in future. Therefore, I am inclined to

allow the application for interim custody of the vehicle.

9. In the result, order dated 29.07.2021 is quashed and the petition is allowed. The

vehicle is directed to be released to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

1. Before release of vehicle proper panchnama be prepared.

2. Photographs of vehicle should be taken and bond should also be produced

that the article would be produced if required at the time of trial.

3. Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs. 5 Lakhs and like sum of local

surety be obtained before release of vehicle.

Sd/-

Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu