RANUBHAI NOGHABHAI ALGOTAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer is made to release the muddamal Truck - Eicher Pro bearing registration No. GJ-16-Z-9801, which has been seized in connection with FIR No.11214008202213 registered with Bardoli Police Station, Surat Rural for offences punishable under Ss. 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f) and 11(1)(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act , for short), under Ss. 4 and 9(1) of the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 2005 (for short, GECC Act), Sec. 125(e) of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2015 and Sec. 2 of the Gujarat State (Animals Transport) Control Order, 1975.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Umang Vyas for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the original owner of the vehicle in question, which is his source of livelihood. It is lying in the concerned police station since the date of its seizure. The vehicle is hypothecated with Sundaram Finance Limited, which has no objection if it is released in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that there is no allegation of transporting the cattle found therein for slaughter purpose. The facts in the impugned FIR suggest that the animals were being transported from Anand in Gujarat to Pandharpur in Maharashtra at the house of Jaluben Jairambhai Gelabhai, daughter of Gagjibhai Chehabhai Bharwad. He referred to the certificate of residence of Jaluben Jairambhai Gelabhai issued by the Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur as also the Aadhar Card of her husband - Jairam Gela Algotar to support the fact of residential address. He submits that the provisions of section 9 of the GECC Act provides that any Court trying the contravention of an order may direct that any property in respect of which the Court is satisfied that the order has been contravened and any vehicle, vessel or animal which the Court is satisfied has been used with the knowledge of the person having the control thereof for carrying such property, shall be forfeited to the Government. He stated that the provisions of the PCA Act does not make any such provision of forfeiture of vehicle used for transporting cattle and therefore, the interim custody of the vehicle should be released in favour of the petitioner. He states that the petitioner has not been arraigned as accused in the matter and has not been charge-sheeted and thus, stated that further detention of the vehicle would cause undue hardship to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned APP Mr. Pranav Trivedi stated that the cattle were conveyed for a long distance from District : Anand to District : Solapur in Maharashtra without any provisions of sufficient food, water and shelter. No provision was made in the vehicle to maintain sufficient distance between the cattle, which would allow them to have reasonable space for movement. There was no provision for any medical aid as well.