Banka (Bihar) v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2022 Gulam Sarwar, aged about 33 years, S/o Soukat Ali @ Shokat Ali, resident of village- Makramdih, P.O. + P.S.- Rajoun, District- Banka (Bihar) .......Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ........... Opposite Party For the Petitioner For the Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
:Mr. S. P. Roy, Adv. :Mr. P.K.Chatterjee, Spl.PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda, in Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2022 which was filed against the order dated 21.01.2022, passed by learned CJM, Godda in connection with Godda (T) P.S. case no. 158 of 2021, and also to quash the order dated 21.01.2022, passed by learned CJM, Godda whereby learned CJM, Godda has rejected the petition for release of the truck bearing registration no. BR-10GB/ 3711; which were seized by the police, in connection with the said case. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the 18.05.2021, at 1.00 AM, the police stopped and searched the said truck, which was found loaded with the 21 live cattle and 05 dead cattle, in violation of Jharkhand Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter) Act, 2005 and after commission of theft of the said cattle. Police seized the said vehicle and the aforesaid case was instituted. Learned CJM, Godda, has mentioned in the order dated 21.01.2022, that as the report submitted by the police, discloses that application has been made for initiation of proceeding of confiscation, to the Deputy 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2022 Commissioner, Godda and the same is under process hence, learned CJM, Godda rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle. Learned Sessions Judge, also concurred with the order of the CJM, Godda and rejected the prayer for release of the vehicle as it was reported that the process of the confiscation proceeding is initiated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both learned CJM, Godda and learned Sessions Judge, Godda, have committed gross illegality by failing to consider the fact that Section 12 (3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter) Act, 2005 envisages forfeiture of any vehicle found to have been used in transportation of Cattle or beef contravening any provision of this Act and the same can only be done after conclusion of the trial and the undisputed fact remains that the trial of the case is yet to be concluded and the Deputy Commissioner, has no power to confiscate the vehicle during the pendency of the trial of the case. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Md. Mahtab Alam Khan vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 219 of 2019 dated 28.06.2021 reported in 2021 3 JCR 401 and also in the case of Dharmender Ray & ORs. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 16 of 2022 dated 12.05.2022 reported in 2022 3 JCR 345, hence, it is submitted that the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda and the order dated 21.01.2022, passed by learned CJM, Godda in connection with Godda (T) P.S. case no. 158 of 2021 be quashed and set aside and the truck bearing registration no. BR-10GB/3711 be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that Section 12 (3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 envisages the forfeiture of the vehicle found to have been used in transportation of Cattle or beef to the State Government, after conclusion of the trial. 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2022 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this court has no hesitation in holding that both the learned CJM, Godda in his order dated 21.01.2022 and learned Sessions Judge, Godda in his order dated 06.04.2022, have committed gross illegality by rejecting the prayer for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner merely on the ground that the confiscation proceeding is contemplated to be initiated in respect of the seized vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda though learned Deputy Commissioner, Godda, has no power to confiscate the vehicle during pendency of the trial. Because it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the coordinate benches of this Court also that as Section 12 (3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter) Act, 2005 envisages forfeiture of any vehicle found to have been used in transportation of Cattle or beef contravening any provision of this Act and the word ‘found’ appearing in Section 12 (3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter) Act, 2005; means a finding arrived at considering the evidence; which can only be done after conclusion of the trial 7. Accordingly, the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda and the order dated 21.01.2022, passed by learned CJM, Godda in connection with Godda (T) P.S. case no. 158 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. 8. Learned CJM, Godda, is directed to pass an appropriate order for release the truck bearing registration no. BR-10GB 3711 in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner submitting an undertaking on the following terms and conditions: i. The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties to abide by the conditions delineated below. ii. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the court. iii. The petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle during the pendency of the case. iv. The petitioner shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner during the pendency of the case. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2352 of 2022 v. Any other condition, if any, to be imposed by the trial court.
Decision
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 10th January, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)