Allowed

Hirendra Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2022CRR/155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court set aside an order rejecting the applicant's request for vehicle custody. The Court held that since there was no evidence the cattle were transported for slaughter, the statutory restraint under Section 6(3) of the Chhattisgarh Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 did not apply.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the applicant is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle till the conclusion of the trial by imposing reasonable conditions.

Hirendra Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2022

¶5

Hirendra Patel S/o Sevakram, Aged about 42 years, R/o- Ward No. 01, Panchsil Nagar Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Owner of the Vehicle)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through : P.S. Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶12

08.09.2022

¶13

This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Sessions Case No. 30/2021 by which the applicant's application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for grant of custody of the vehicle seized for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 120B, 34 of IPC; Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act; Sections 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 of Chhattisarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act and Sections 48, 49A, 50 of the Chhattisgarh Cattle Transporting Act, has been rejected holding that the case has been registered for confiscation proceeding and looking to the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and by keeping confiscation proceeding pending, it does not seem appropriate to be given the seized vehicle Truck bearing No. CG 12-C-2213 to the applicant on supurdnama.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons, but there is no allegation that the cattle in question were being transported for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of the provisions contained in the Act of 2004 and therefore,

¶15

¶16

Section 6 (3) of the said Act would not apply. He would rely upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of Ravidasbhai Segjibhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat, 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 14545 in support of his submission.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶19

The Act of 2004 has been enacted in the interest of the general public and to maintain communal harmony and peace, for prohibition of slaughter of agricultural cattle. Section 6 of the Act of 2004 provides prohibition on transport of agricultural cattle for slaughter. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act of 2004 which reads as under:-

¶20

“ 6. Prohibition on transport of Agricultural cattle for

¶21

slaughter. –(1) No person shall sell, or transport or offer to transport or cause to be transported any Agricultural cattle from any place within the state to any place within the state or outside the State, for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provision of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so slaughtered.

¶22

(2) Whenever any person transports or causes to be transported in contravention of provisions of subsection (1) any agricultural cattle as specified in the Schedule, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting such animal alongwith such agricultural cattle shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.

¶23

(3) 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

¶24

¶25

from the date of such seizure or till the final judgment of the court, whichever is earlier and such vehicle shall also be liable for confiscation at the end of the trial.”

¶26

A focused perusal of Section 6 (1) of the Act of 2004, would show that the provision bars transport, possession and sale of cattle for the purpose of slaughter or with the knowledge that the same may be slaughtered. Mere transport of cattle from one place to another for the purpose other than slaughter is not barred under the Act and in that case the provision under Section 6(3) of the Act of 2004 would not be applicable.

¶27

It is well settled law that penal statutes are to be strictly construed. When a specific word has been inserted by the legislature, the provision cannot be given a different meaning. In the matter of W.H. King vs. Republic of India and another, AIR 1952 SC 156 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court pertinently observed as under:-

¶28

“10. As the statute creates an offence and imposes a penalty of fine and imprisonment, the words of the section must be strictly construed in favour of the subject. We are not concerned so much with what might possibly have been intended as with what has been actually said in and by the language employed.”

¶29

Similarly, in the matter of State of West Bengal and others vs. Swapan

¶30

Kumar Guha and others, (1982) 1 SCC 561 , the Supreme Court held as

¶31

under:-

¶32

“15. … when it is said that penal statutes must be construed strictly, what is meant is that the court must see that the thing charged is an offence within the plain meaning of the words used and it must not strain the words : “To put it in other words, the rule of strict construction requires that the language of a statute should be so construed that no case shall be held to fall within it which does not come within the

¶33

¶34

reasonable interpretation of the statute”, and that in case of doubt, the construction favourable to the subject should be preferred. But I do not think that this rule of strict interpretation of penal statutes in any way affects the fundamental principle of interpretation, that the primary test which can safely be applied is the language used in the Act and, therefore, when the words are clear and plain, the court must accept the expressed intention of the legislature. ...”

¶35

The pari materia provision contained in clause (4) of Section 6(A) of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 came up for consideration before the Gujarat High Court in Ravidasbhai Segjibhai Vasava (supra) in which the Gujarat High Court considering the issue identical as involved in the present case held that clause (4) of Section 6(A) would apply only in a case where the animals are being transported for the purpose of slaughter. It has been observed in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the report as under:-

¶36

“10. The plain reading of section (6(A) clause (1) would indicate that the same is applicable in a case where it is found that the animals were being transported from any place within the State to any other place within the State for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of the provisions of the Act or with the knowledge that they were likely to be slaughtered. There is a proviso to section 6(A) clause (1) which provides that a person shall be deemed to be transporting such animal for the purpose of slaughter unless contrary is proved thereto to the satisfaction of the concerned authority or officer by such person or he has obtained a permission under sub-section (2) for transporting the animal for bona fide agricultural or animal husbandry purpose. 11. Clause (4) to section 6 (A) puts a restriction so far as the release of the vehicle is concerned for a period of six months.

¶37

¶38

It is, therefore, manifest that section 6(A) clause (4) would apply only in a case where the animals are being transported for the purpose of slaughter.

¶39

It is not in dispute so far as the present case is concerned that no permit was obtained by the petitioner herein as the registered owner of the vehicle for the purpose of transport. However, at the same time, the prosecution has to, prima facie, show something that the transport of the cattle was for the purpose of slaughter. For such purpose. I inquired with Mr. Dabhi, the learned APP, regarding the materials collected by the police in the course of investigation. Mr. Dabhi has fairly submitted that there is nothing to show that the cattle were being transported for the purpose of slaughter. It appears that there is no investigation in that direction. If it is the case of the prosecution that the cattle were being transported for the purpose of slaughter, then at least, it is expected from the investigating officer to investigate at which place they were being taken and were to be handed over to whom for the purpose of slaughter. There is nothing in that regard. In the absence of such material, in my view, the prosecution cannot straight way take recourse to the deeming fiction as provided under section 6(A)(1). In such circumstances, I am of the view that there should not be any legal impediment in releasing the vehicle before the expiry of the statutory time period i.e. six months.”

¶40

10.Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid legal position and the principle of law flowing from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Ravidasbhai Segjibhai Vasava (supra) it is established legal position that if the agricultural cattle is being transported for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of the Act of 2004, bar under Section 6(3) would apply and vehicle cannot be released on interim custody for a period of six

¶41

¶42

months or till the judgment is pronounced whichever is earlier, but mere transportation of agricultural cattle from one place to another for the purpose other than slaughter is not an offence under the said Act and in case Section 6(1) of the Act of 2004 is not attracted, bar contained in Section 6(3) of the Act would not attract and interim custody can be granted without waiting for the period of six months as provided.

¶43

11.A careful perusal of the order impugned and other documents annexed with the revision would show that the prosecution or the investigating agency at no place has alleged that the applicant's vehicle was being used to transport the cattle for the purpose of slaughter in contravention of the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 6(1) of the Act of 2004. Case of the prosecution in sum and substance is that the applicant's vehicle was being used to carry the cattle from one place to another and it was not in contravention of Section 6(1) of the Act of 2004.

¶44

12.At this stage, learned counsel for the State, would point the definition of “slaughter” which has been contained in Section 2(e) of the Act of 2004. Section 2(e) of the Act of 2004 states as under:-

¶45

“(e) “Slaughter” means killing by any method whatsoever and includes maiming or inflicting of physical injury which in the ordinary course will cause death.”

¶46

13.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it cannot be said that the agricultural cattle were in bad / injured condition to attract the definition of “slaughter” so as to apply the bar contained in Section 6(3) of the Act of 2004.

¶47

14.In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. It is held that bar under Section 6(3) of the Act of 2004 is not at all attracted and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of

¶48

¶49

Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 , the applicant would be entitled for the custody of the vehicle till the conclusion of trial. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to give the interim custody of the vehicle to the applicant by imposing reasonable conditions.

¶50

15.The revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶53

vatti

Hirendra Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hirendra Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daluram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chaivati Vs Baisakhi Bai and Others

Ramrajji Chhabra Vs Raja Saluja

Chandrahas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Balkrishna Kashyap Vs Smt. Lilavati

Jeetu @ Jitendra Shriwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh