Jharkhand High Court
Md. Rizwan vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2391 of 2022
Md. Rizwan ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
------
02/ 13.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
17.06.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1076 of 2022 arising out of
Bashisthanagar P.S. Case No. 66 of 2021, pending in that court.
3. The case was registered on the self-statement of Kundan
Bhagat, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bashisthanagar Police Station recorded
on 15.07.2021 at about 3:00 am, at Hunterganj Chatra Road near
Lawsinghna P.S. Bashisthanagar, District-Chatra alleging inter alia that he
was on night patrolling duty along with other police official and in course
of that reached Huntergunj Chatra Pitch Road at 2:00 am on 15.07.2021,
in the meantime two truck containers was coming on a high speed and
same was instructed to stop then the driver of the trucks have started to
flee away by duping the information, however, same was forced to stop
with the help of other police official and the registration number of the
truck bearing registration No. UP-21-BN-9019, however, driver has
managed to flee away and could not be apprehended in spite of their best
effort and, thereafter, truck was searched then one person was found
sitting in the driving seat then on interrogation he disclosed his name as
Armaan Qureshi then he stated that he was the driver of the truck and,
thereafter, he was searched in presence of the police witnesses but nothing
was recovered from his possession and, thereafter, truck was searched then
it was found that 40 pieces of bovine animals were loaded on the container
and then another container was inspected and same was found without any
number and 23 pieces of bovine animals were found loaded inside the
container in a cruel manner and the animals were very hungry. The driver
of the truck was asked to deposit the valid paper for the transportation, but
he could not hand over the same nor any paper was found and another
truck container also searched, but noting was found and no paper with
respect to transportation was found, and therefore, both the trucks along
with the bovine animals were seized and copy of the same was handed
over to the apprehended accused. Transporting bovine animals without
any license is an offence and therefore, an FIR was registered and the
apprehended accused was arrested.
4. Mr. K.S. Nanda, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that there is no provision of confiscation under Jharkhand Bovine
Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005. He submits that only
provision is under Section 12(3) of the Act whereby it transpires that the
vehicle in question can be forfeited to State Government. He submits that
in view of Section 12(3) that will happen after once the trial comes to the
conclusion of conviction of charged accused. He further submits that
vehicles in questions are commercial and if it will be allowed to languish
in the premise of Police Station, it will destroy. In terms of Section 451 of
Cr.P.C. also, the case of the petitioner is fortified. To buttress his
argument, he relied the case of Mirza Dildar Beg & Others reported in
2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 55. He further relied the case of Md. Reyazuddin
Versus The State of Jharkhand reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 985.
He further relied on Cr. Rev. No.1407 of 2016 in the case of Raju Prasad
Keshri Versus The State of Jharkhand.
5. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the
State submits that the vehicle in question was seized under Sections 4(A)
and 4(B) and Sections 12(i) and 12(ii) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal
Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005. He submits that this court may not
interfere in the matter, as the bovine animals were illegally carried out,
which is in violation of such statute.
6. On perusal of provision of Jharkhand Bovine Animal
Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005, it is apparent that there is no
provision of confiscation of vehicle or goods as provided under some Acts
i.e. Essential Commodities Act and Forest Act. The aforesaid Acts
prescribe forfeiture of vehicle particularly under Section 12(3) of
Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughtering Act, 2005 which
reads as under:-
"Whenever a vehicle is found to have been used in
transportation of Cattle or Beef contravening any
provision of this Act the Vehicle shall be forfeited to
the State Government."
7. On plain reading of the provision it is clear that the words
used "Whenever a vehicle is found to have been used........" literally the
use of word, found in the section connotes that a finding has to be
arrived at that the vehicle was used in transportation of cattle or beef in
contravention of the provision of the Act. Such finding can only be
arrived only after the evidence is brought on record during an enquiry or
trial meaning thereby that the charges/allegations have to be proved that
the vehicle was used in contravention of the provision of the Act
whereafter the vehicle shall be forfeited to the State Government. It is not
disputed that in the instant case no proceeding has been initiated for
forfeiture neither does the Act provide for initiation of confiscation
proceeding and the vehicle is lying at the police station without any use in
an uncared manner.
8. On plain reading of the above provision, it is crystal clear
from (Whenever a vehicle is found to have been used........") and it further
says that the vehicle should be forfeited to the State Government. Meaning
thereby, once the trial is concluded and the conviction is held by the Trial
Court then only the forfeiture of vehicle will come into effect. The vehicle
in question is commercial as indicated and this aspect of the matter has
been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.
Para 5 and 17 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass
appropriate orders with regard to such property,
such as:
(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of
the inquiry or trial;
(2) to order it to be said or otherwise disposed of,
after recording such
(3) If the property is subject to speedy and natural
decay, the dispose of the same.
"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."
9. In view of the above facts and the settled law, the detention of
vehicle is of no use as it will not only lead to damage and loss of utility of
the vehicle but will also cause a loss of revenue to the Government due to
non-pilance of the commercial vehicle.
10. The learned Trial Court is directed to grant interim custody of
vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-21-BN-9019 by ordering it to be
released in favour of the petitioner on his giving an undertaking on the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs.
Three Lacs Fifty Thousand (Rs. 3.5. Lacs) with two
sureties.
(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner
of a commercial vehicle of District Chatra.
(iii) that the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or
transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire
purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner.
(iv) He shall not change or tamper with the
identification of the vehicle in any manner.
(v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when
directed by the learned Trial Court. The learned
Trial Court is at liberty to impose any other terms
and conditions which the trial Court deems fit and
proper.
12. With the aforesaid direction, the impugned order dated
17.06.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1076 of 2022 arising out of
Bashisthanagar P.S. Case No. 66 of 2021, pending in that court, is hereby,
quashed.
13. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
