Gujarat High Court
Sakinaben Husenbhai Ganchi vs State Of Gujarat on 27 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 627 of 2025
==========================================================
SAKINABEN HUSENBHAI GANCHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
UMARFARUK M KHARADI(8155) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 27/03/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dahod at Limkheda in Criminal Revision Application No.50 of 2024 as well as the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Baria, Limkheda in Muddamal Application No.489 of 2024, and thereby to release the muddamal vehicle.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the applicant herein owned a vehicle called Mahindra Max bearing Registration No.GJ-20-U-4058 which came to be seized in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11821050240748 of 2024 registered with Sagtala Police Station for the offence Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025 undefined punishable under Sections 5(1)(1a), 6(A)(3), 6(A)(4) and 8(4) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act and Sections 11(1)(D)(E) (F) & (H) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 281 and 54 of BNS, inter alia, alleging therein that the said vehicle was used in transportation of three cows allegedly for slaughtering purposes, in contravention of the provisions of Animal Preservation Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
3. Therefore, the applicant preferred an application before the learned trial court for release of muddamal vehicle, however, the said application came to be rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 03.10.2024.
4. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred revision application before the revisional court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. being Criminal Revision Application No.50 of 2024, and the said application also came to be rejected by the revisional court vide order dated 14.11.2024.
5. Being aggrieved, the applicant is here before this Court with the present application.
6. Learned advocate Mr. U.M. Kharadi appearing for the applicant submits that the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are ex facie, illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the settled provisions of law, and as such, those are required to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that both the courts below have committed a grave error in denying the possession of the Muddamal vehicle and have arrived at the erroneous conclusion only on assumption Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025 undefined and presumption that the livestock so transported in the offending vehicle was for slaughtering purposes without there being any material to substantiate such allegation. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section (6) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act ought not to have been applied. Learned advocate Mr. Kharadi also submits that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the applicant is an agriculturist and neither the applicant nor her husband are associated with any kind of slaughtering activities. Moreover, the applicant is a lady and she did not have any knowledge about her vehicle being used in transporting prohibited animals, and therefore, benefit of exception carved out in Rule 4(A)D ought to have been given to the applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Kharadi submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed in toto, there is no iota of evidence to suggest that the vehicle seized as Muddamal was used for transportation of livestock to the slaughter house. Moreover, the Muddamal vehicle is lying in an idle condition in the police station, and if the same is not released, then there are all likelihoods of it being decayed, which would cause great financial loss to the applicant who is a poor farmer. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside.
7. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by the learned APP appearing for the State and submits that the animal (cow) seized from the Muddamal vehicle alleged to have been transported for slaughtering purposes is the prohibited animal as specified in Section 6(A) of the Act, 2017, and as such, there is a specific bar under Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025 undefined Sections 6(A) and 6(B) for release of Muddamal being used for slaughtering purposes. Therefore, the present application may not be entertained.
8. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.
9. The learned trial court, while dismissing the application, has recorded the following findings;
"5. To decide the present application, it seems me expedient to look at the section 6A of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017 which reads as under;
Amendment of Section 6A of the Bom. LXXII of 1954:
In the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, (Bom. LXXII of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act") in section 6A, for sub-section (4), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely;
"(4) The vehicle or any conveyance so seized under sub-
section (3) shall stand forfeited to Government in the manner as may be prescribed."
Amendment of Section 6B of the Bom. LXXII of 1954:
In the Principal Act, in section 6B, for sub-section (3), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely, "(3) The vehicle or any conveyance so seized under sub-
section (2) shall stand forfeited to Government in the manner as may be prescribed."
6. Now, reverting back to the facts of the present case the accused are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 5(1)(1-A), 6A(3), 6A(4), 8(4) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017 and Sections 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f), 11(1)(h) of Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025 undefined Animal Cruelty Act, 1960 and the present vehicle is involved in carrying two cows for slaughtering purposes. As per the amended provisions aforementioned of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, which was amended in 2017 and which came into effect from 04.09.2017, the muddamal vehicle is liable to be forfeited to Government, this being the law the present application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Hence, I make the following;
ORDER
1. The present application filed by the applicant is hereby rejected.
2. No order as to costs."
10. Then, the Revision Court made the following findings;
"(8) I have gone through the entire papers produced by both the parties as well as the judgment cited by the learned Advocate of the applicant. On perusal of provision of Section 6A and 6B of Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017, which is related to the seizure and confiscation of vehicle or conveyance are enacted of the said provisions are applicable only in relation to animals mentioned in Section 5(1A) of the said Act which includes cow, calf of a cow, bull and bullock. It is required to quote the said provisions of Section 6A and 6B of the Act which are as under;
6A. Prohibition against transportation of specified animals for slaughter:-
(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported any animal specified in sub-
section (1A) of section 5 from any place within the State to any another place within the State for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be so slaughtered:
Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025 undefined Provided that a person shall be deemed to be transporting such animal for the purpose of slaughter unless contrary is proved thereto to the satisfaction of the concerned authority or officer by such person or he has obtained a permit under sub-section (2) for transporting animal for bona fide agricultural or animal husbandry purpose from such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.
(2)(a) A person may make an application in the prescribed form to the authority or officer referred to in sub-section (1) for grant of permit in writing for transportation of any animal specified in sub-section (1A) of section 5 from any place within the State to any another place within the State.
(b) If, on receipt of any such application for grant of permit, such authority is of the opinion that grant of permit shall not be detrimental to the object of the Act, it may grant permit in such form and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed.
(3) Whenever any person transports or causes to be transported in contravention of provisions of sub-section (1) any animal as specified in sub-section (1A) of section 5, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting such animal alongwith such animal shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.
(4) The vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-
section (3) shall stand forfeited to Government in the manner as may be prescribed.
6B. Prohibition against selling or buying beef or beef products:-
(1) No person shall directly or indirectly sell, keep, store, transport, offer or expose for sell or buy beef or beef products in any form.Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025 undefined (2) Whenever any person transports or causes to be transported the beef or beef products, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting such beef or beef products alongwith such beef or beef products shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section "beef" means flesh of any animal specified in sub-section (1A) of section 5, in any form."
(9) Now, looking to the provision of Section 6A of the said Act, it applies to transportation of specified animal and Section 6B of the said Act, applies when vehicle or conveyance is used for transporting beef or beef products. Now, here-in-this case, looking to the FIR, seized vehicle alleged to have been used at the time of offence and therefore, it was seized by the police authority from the accused, not only that looking to the FIR, the said vehicle used for transporting the three cows and therefore, looking to the FIR it prima facie appears that the seized vehicle was used for transporting the specified animal of Section 6A of the said Act.
(10) Now, looking to the FIR, it reveals that the said vehicle was used for transporting the specified animal under Section 6A of the said Act and therefore, Section 6A(3)(4) will be came into picture and as per Section 6A(3)(4) whenever any person transports or causes to be transported in contravention of provisions of sub-section (1) any animal as specified in sub-section (1A) of Section 5, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting such animal with such animal shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf and Section 4 of the said Act, provides that the said vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-section (3) shall stand forfeited o Government in the manner as may be prescribed.
(11) Now, looking to this clear provision and also looking the FIR, at this juncture, it prima facie appears that the said vehicle was used to transport the specified animal under Section 6A of the said Act, and therefore, learned Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025 undefined trial Judge has rightly rejected the said application and looking to the legal provisions learned trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the muddamal application. Hence, I reply the point nos.1 & 2 in the negative.
Point No.3 (12) In the result, following final order is passed in the interest of justice.
ORDER
1. The present criminal revision application stands dismissed.
2. The impugned order dated 03.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.489/24 by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Devgadh-baria dismissing the application for releasing the muddamal, seized under the provisions of Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, is hereby confirmed.
3. No order as to costs."
(11) From the findings recorded by both the courts below, as quoted above, it appears that, no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by both the courts below in passing the impugned orders. Hence, I am of the opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below do not require any interference at the end of this Court.
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025 undefined (12) In the result, the present application fails and is hereby rejected.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025