Gujarat High Court
Anilkumar Ramsingh Sisodiya vs State Of Gujarat on 11 December, 2020
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/SCR.A/6484/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6484 of 2020
==========================================================
ANILKUMAR RAMSINGH SISODIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SAGAR J SHAH(9447) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 11/12/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.J. Shah, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. The facts in brief are that on 23.06.2020 the vehicle of the petitioner (Mahindra Company make - Bolero Car) bearing registration No. GJ-17-UU-6655 came to be seized in connection with a complaint being FIR No.11207002200742 of 2020 registered with Godhra B Division Police Station, District Panchmahals for the offences punishable under sections 279 of IPC, under sections 177, 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, under sections 5(1)(a), 8(4) and 10 of the Animal Preservation Act, under sections 6(a)(1) and 6(3) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and sections 11(d) and 11(f) of the Animal Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 12 09:32:22 IST 2020 R/SCR.A/6484/2020 ORDER Protection Act. The petitioner, thereafter, moved application before the trial Court seeking release of the muddamal vehicle; however, the same came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr. K.K. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is not connected with the alleged offence in any manner inasmuch as the alleged act of transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter was not done by the petitioner. It was submitted that the contents of the complaint itself suggest that the petitioner had no knowledge about the alleged transportation of cattle in his vehicle, as two other individuals, who were found to be in the vehicle at the relevant time, had fled the place.
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the amended provisions of The Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act") to submit that the provisions of the Act no where provide that any vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act shall remain forfeited permanently. It was, accordingly, urged that benefit of the provision of Section 6A of the Act may be extended to the petitioner and the vehicle may be released on suitable terms and conditions.
4. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, referred to the amended provisions of the Act to submit that in view of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 6A of the Act, any vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act shall stand forfeited with the Government. It was, accordingly, urged that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 12 09:32:22 IST 2020R/SCR.A/6484/2020 ORDER
5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the documents on record. Considering the facts of the case, a reference to the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. would be apposite:
"451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases:
When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation--For the purposes of this section, "property"
includes--
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody.
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence."
6. Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. mandates that when any property is produced before any criminal Court during the trial, the Court may make order for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the trial. The object of Section 451 Cr.P.C. is well defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) G.L.H. 307, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court have extracted Para
- 4 of the judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Basava Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs. State of Mysore and Another [ (1977) 4 Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 12 09:32:22 IST 2020 R/SCR.A/6484/2020 ORDER SCC 358] , as under:
"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place, it may be returned during any inquire or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance.
The court further observed that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the state or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property.
To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest."Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 12 09:32:22 IST 2020
R/SCR.A/6484/2020 ORDER
7. In the present case, it appears from the record that the muddamal vehicle belonging to the petitioner was allegedly found to be transporting cattle for the purpose of slaughter in breach of the relevant provisions of the Act. A perusal of the complaint reveals that both the driver as also the passenger in the vehicle fled from the place when the vehicle was stopped by the police. However, there is not a whisper in the complaint that the alleged act of transportation of cattle for the purpose of slaughter was done with the knowledge of the petitioner herein. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had the knowledge even if the case of the other side is believed that cattle was being transported in his vehicle for the purpose of slaughter at the relevant point of time.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the vehicle in question could be released on suitable terms and conditions.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent authority is directed to forthwith release the vehicle belonging to the petitioner bearing registration No. GJ-17-UU-6655 on furnishing one solvent surety equivalent to the present value of the muddamal vehicle to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned and on the further condition that the petitioner shall not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicle in question in any manner pending the trial and shall produce the vehicle as and when called for. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 12 09:32:22 IST 2020 R/SCR.A/6484/2020 ORDER permitted.
(GITA GOPI, J) DIPTI PATEL Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 12 09:32:22 IST 2020