MD. NOUSHAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dtd. 5/4/2022 passed in Confiscation Case No.76/2022 by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, whereby, confiscation proceeding of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. BR-02-PA-3539 in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.136/2021 dtd. 3/8/2021 was started.

(2.) The FIR was registered on the complaint of the Police Inspector Sunil Paswan alleging therein that he got secret information that white colour Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. BR-02-PA-3539 is carrying two quintal of cow flesh from Nawada Bihar to Jalwabad in Koderma P.S. for sell, thereafter he with his team reached to Bagitand check post and started searching the vehicle coming from Bihar and at about 08:30 P.M., the said vehicle reached there and he along with his team stopped the said vehicle and on search, he found the vehicle was driven by Md. Arman Ansari and other person namely Md. Chunnu Alam, Md. Imtiyaz, Md. Arman, are resident of Akbarpur P.S., District- Nawada, Bihar were there and after search, 5 bags of cow flesh were found at the back seat of alleged vehicle and thereafter, cow flesh were seized and the persons were arrested on the spot and later on, after interrogation, it has been stated by the driver of the said vehicle that owner of the said vehicle is Md. Noushad-petitioner from whom the said vehicle was purchased on hire purchase agreement in installments.

(3.) Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision of confiscation under Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005. He submits that only provision is under Sec. 12(3) of the Act, whereby, it transpires that the vehicle in question can be forfeited to State Government. He further submits that in view of Sec. 12(3), that will happen once after the trial comes to the conclusion of conviction of charged accused. He also submits that vehicle in questions is commercial and if it will be allowed to languish in the premise of Police Station, it will destroy. In terms of Sec. 451 of Cr.P.C. also, the case of the petitioner is fortified. To buttress his argument, he relied the case of Mirza Dildar Beg and Others v. State of Jharkhand; (2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 55). He further relied upon the judgment in Md. Reyazuddin v. The State of Jharkhand; (2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 985). He also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.1407 of 2016 in Raju Prasad Keshri v. The State of Jharkhand.