Mustafa vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1405 Tel

            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

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

. (2014) 7 SCC 547

. (2002) 10 SCC 283 KL,J Crl.P. No.2204 of 2021

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

. (2010) 6 SCC 768 KL,J Crl.P. No.2204 of 2021

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