JESAL RANSINH GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. With the consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent-authority to release the muddamal vehicle being Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing Registration No. GJ-12-BV-3700, which was seized in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11189005220148 for the offences punishable u/s. 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f) and 11(1)(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and sec. 135 of the G.P. Act.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. The cattle were transported for agricultural / animal husbandry purposes. However, the muddamal vehicle has been detained on the presumption that the cattle were being transported for slaughter purpose without any basis. He submitted that if interim custody of the muddamal vehicle is not handed over to the petitioner, it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner as the condition of the vehicle would get damaged substantially with the passage of time and probably, by the end of trial, the value of the muddamal vehicle may also become 'Nil' as the vehicle is lying under the open sky. It was further submitted that this Court has ordered release of muddamal vehicles in instances under sec. 98(2) of the amended Act. It was, accordingly, urged that this Court may order release of the muddamal vehicle in exercise of the extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on suitable terms and conditions.