NARAYAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is registered owner of mini truck bearing registration No.CG-05/AJ1579. His vehicle was found involved in the commission of Crime No.339/2020 under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 on 31-10-2020 and offence has been registered against four accused persons including Rupesh Yadav and Himesh Vishwakarma. The accused persons have been charge-sheeted for those offences and the same is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Court. Meanwhile, the petitioner herein, being registered owner of the vehicle, filed application for grant of interim custody of the said vehicle under Section 457 of the CrPC before the said Court which has been rejected by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 9-11-2020 on the ground that under Section 6(1) of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (for short, 'the Act of 2004'), there is total prohibition on the transport of agricultural cattle for slaughtering and the vehicle in question was found in transporting agricultural cattle for the purpose of slaughter and thus the same was seized, as the vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-section (2) shall not be released by the order of the court on bond or surety before the expiry of six months from the date of such seizure or till the final judgment of the court, whichever is earlier by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act of 2004 and such vehicle shall also be liable for confiscation at the end of the trial.

(2.) The petitioner called in question legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate before the revisional Court, but remained unsuccessful leading to filing of this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC principally on the ground that Section 6(1) of the Act of 2004 would attract when cattle are transported for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 2004 or with the knowledge that it will be likely to be slaughtered and if there is no allegation of slaughter and the cattle are being transported for a valid purpose, then Section 6(3) of the Act of 2004 would not apply and interim custody can be granted immediately based on the merits of the matter. In this case, there is no allegation of transporting the agricultural cattle for the purpose of slaughter, therefore, bar under Section 6(3) of the Act of 2004 would not apply and the petitioner is entitled for interim custody of the vehicle.

(3.) Return has been filed by the State / respondent opposing the allegations made in the petition and supporting the seizure of the vehicle and rejection of application by the two Courts below.