Jharkhand High Court
Raju Prasad Keshari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 November, 2016
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1407 of 2016
Raju Prasad Keshri .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, A.P.P.
Order No. 02 Dated 23rd November 2016
Heard Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned A.P.P. for the State.
This application is directed against the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with G.R. Case No. 684 of 2016 arising out of Barkatha P.S. case No. 30 of 2016 by which the application, preferred by the petitioner for release of the truck bearing registration No. NL02K-1068, has been rejected.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was seized while carrying animals. Learned counsel referring to the provisions of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, submits that there is no provision for confiscation of vehicle in the said Act and merely on the basis of an application sent by the Officer-in-Charge to the Deputy Commissioner for confiscating the vehicle in question, the same has been confiscated, which itself cannot be a ground to refuse to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.
Learned APP appearing for the State has supported the impugned order.
It appears from the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 that the same has been passed solely on the consideration that the investigation is still going on and an application has been sent by the Officer-in-Charge to the Deputy Commissioner for confiscating the vehicle in question, which was seized on the allegation of carrying bovine animals for the purpose of slaughtering. The reasons which have been assigned in the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of law as there is no provision under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 with respect to confiscation of the vehicle and only Section 12(3) of the Act provides for forfeiture of the vehicle by the State Government whenever a vehicle is found to have 2. been used in transportation of cattle, but this does not come into play at present in this case, as it can only be decided in trial that the vehicle in question was used in contravention of the provisions as contained in Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005. While this fact was considered in Cr.M.P. No. 2862 of 2013 with Cr.M.P. No. 2865 of 2013 (Mirza Dildar Beg and others v. State of Jharkhand), it has been held that under the circumstances, it would not be proper and appropriate to allow the vehicle to be kept in the custody of the police as admittedly the petitioners are still to be put on trial. In the case of Md. Reyazuddin v. The State of Jharkhand (Cr. Revision No. 91 of 2014) also specific finding has been given that there is no provision for confiscation of vehicle or goods as provided under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 or in the Essential Commodities Act or the Indian Forest Act, etc. The impugned order dated 21.09.2016 therefore in absence of proper consideration with respect to the provisions of the Act and the judgments passed by this Court while interpreting Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below to pass a fresh order on the release application preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law after hearing the parties and after consideration of the materials available on record. Since the truck in question is suffering from vagaries of weather, this exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
This application is allowed and disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) MK