Jharkhand High Court
Md Juber vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 June, 2016
Author: A.B.Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4117 of 2015
.....
Md. Juber .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. S.P.C.A. Inspector, Dhanbad .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P No.2 : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate 10/ Dated 28 June, 2016 th The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with P.C.A Case No. 162 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 11,38(3) of P.C.A, Act 1960, under Section 4 and 4(B) of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Preservation @ Improvement of Animals Act, 1956 and also under Section 12 and 13 of Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005.
From perusal of order dated 9.5.2016 it appears that opposite party no.2 complainant was directed to produce the notification issued by the State Government in terms of the provision of Section 10(3) of the Act authorizing the complainant to exercise the powers of search and seizure.
Today when the case was called out, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 did not produce any notification issued by the State Government authorizing the complainant who is the Inspector Incharge of SPCA Prevention of Cruelty rather file a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1552 of 2012 Md. Salim & Ors. Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. whereby the Hon'ble Court has held as follows.
" It is true that under the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, the Inspector SPCA has not been empowered to make search and seizure but since there was a violation under the Prevention of Cruelty of Animal Act, a search and seizure effected can be said to be in connection with the offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. While launching prosecution under Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, the complainant cannot be said to have committed any illegality in launching prosecution also under the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 as offences thereunder being cognizable, any one can set the law in motion for commission of the offence under the aforesaid Act.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance and hence, it never warrants to be quashed.
2 Before parting with the order, it be recorded that one more prayer is there in the petition with respect to release of the animals which has been seized but since the petitioners have never moved before the court below for release of the animals, I am not to entertain the said prayer in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, this application stands dismissed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Hon'ble Court did not interfere with the order dated 12.7.2012 passed in P.C.A. Case No. 110 of 2012 whereby the cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 3, 11(i)(a)(d)
(e)(f)(h)(i)(k), 38 (3), 39 (4) (b), 29(1)(2) (3) and (5) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 as well as Rules 47,48,49,50,52,54,96,97 of the Cattle Transportation, 1978 and also Sections 3,4, 4(a), 4(d), 5, 12(1) (2)(3) and 5 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 as well as under Rules, 5,6, and 7 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Rules, 2011 has been taken against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the State did not produce the copy of notification. After hearing the parties, the provisions of Section 10 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 SubSection 3 admittedly empowers to make search and seizure under the aforesaid fact under the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 which reads as under "(3) Any police officer not below the rank of subinspector or any persons authorized in this behalf by the State Government may with a view to securing compliance with the provision of the Section 4(a) and Section 4(b) or for satisfying himself that the provision of the said Section has been complied with
(a) Enter, stop and search or authorize any person to enter, stop and search any vehicle used or intended to be used in the export of bovine animals.
(b) Seize or authorize the seizure of bovine animals in respect of which he suspects that any provisions of Section 4(a) or 4(b) has been, is being or is about to be contravened, along with the vehicle in which such animals are found and thereafter take or authorize the taking of all necessary measures for securing the production of the animals and vehicle so seized, in a Court and for their safe custody pending production.
(c) The provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( No. 2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to search and seizures under this Section."
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except confessional statement of coaccused Ranjit Kumar Rai there is no other material evidence against the present petitioner to show his involvement in the alleged offence.
Learned counsel for the State produced the criminal antecedent report of the petitioner. On perusal of the criminal antecedent report it appears that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner.
Regard being had to the facts that it is well settled that statues provide that an act has to be done in particular way it has to be done in that way and other way in proposition of law.
Keeping in view of above facts, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Md. Juber is directed to surrender in the court below within two weeks and pray for bail, and in that event, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad in connection with P.C.A Case No. 162 of 2015 arising out of Case No. 2 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/ in the court below on the date of surrender however, the aforesaid deposition of amount shall be subject to the result of the case.
(A.B.Singh, J.) Anjali /