Gujarat High Court
Raval Vijaybhai Rajubhai vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 2979 of 2025
==========================================================
RAVAL VIJAYBHAI RAJUBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JM BAROT(143) 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 : 09/04/2025
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 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Arvalli at Modasa in Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2025 as well as the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Modasa @ Arvalli, and thereby to release the muddamal vehicle.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the applicant herein owned a muddamal vehicle called Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Company white colour car bearing Registration No.GJ-02-AT-0205 which came to be seized in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11188008240782 of 2024 registered with Modasa Rural Police Station, Arvalli for Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:08:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined the offence punishable under Sections 5, 8(4), 6(a) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1917 read with section 11(1)
(e)(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act read with section 54 of BNS and also read with section 177, 184 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 119 of the G.P. Act inter alia, alleging therein that the said vehicle was used in transportation of 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 10.01.2025.
4. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred revision application before the revisional court being Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2025, and the said application also came to be rejected by the revisional court vide order dated 29.01.2025.
5. Being aggrieved, the applicant is here before this Court with the present application.
6. Learned advocate Mr. J.M. Barot 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 Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:08:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined have arrived at the erroneous conclusion by wrongly interpreting the relevant provisions of law. Learned advocate Mr. Barot also submits that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the applicant was using the muddamal vehicle in transporting the goods, and he was completely unaware about his vehicle being used in transporting the prohibited animals. Learned advocate Mr. Barot 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 labourer. 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, when there is a specific bar under Sections 6(A) for release of Muddamal being used in transporting prohibited animals, the present application may not be entertained.
8. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.
Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:08:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
9. It appears from the record that the Muddamal vehicle was being intercepted by the police while transporting the prohibited animals. The said muddamal vehicle belongs to the applicant. When the said vehicle was intercepted by the police, cows were found in the same, and therefore, the same is hit by Section 6(A) of the Act, 2017. After the Muddamal vehicle came to be seized, the applicant preferred Muddamal application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which came to be rejected by the trial court by assigning cogent reasons. The said order was then assailed in revision before the revisional court, and the revisional court also dismissed the revision application, by making the following observations;
"7.5 The conjoint reading of Section 5(1A), 6A(3) and 6A(4) of the Act, makes it clear that the amended provisions of sub-section 6A(4) shall be applicable in all the cases where cow, calf of cow, bull below the age of 16 years and bullock below the age of 16 years are found to be transported in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 6A of the Act.
7.6 At this juncture, it is not in dispute that muddamal vehicle was seized by the police official, while same was being used for transporting three cows. As, the amended provisions are applicable in the cases where any of cow progeny is/are transports or causes to be transported in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 6A. Therefore, the amended provisions of sub- section 6A(4) of the Act are applicable in the present case. As, restrictions provided u/s 6A(4) are applicable in the present case, muddamal vehicle can not be released by the Court, even by imposing stringent conditions. It is required to be noted that the seizing period of vehicle has not yet reached six months. Therefore, the muddamal vehicle cannot to be released in favour of the present applicant. Hence, I pass the following ordedr.Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:08:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined ORDER
1. The present Criminal Revision Application No.17/2025 is hereby rejected.
2. The order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Modasa is hereby confirmed.
3. Copy of this order be sent to trial court, forthwith."
10. From the findings recorded by both the courts below, 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.
11. In the result, the present application fails and is hereby rejected.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:08:32 IST 2025