Samrun Khatoon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur in Criminal Revision No. 11/2025, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of confiscation passed by the Collector in Revenue Case

¶18

2 / 5

¶19

No.202408030100024/03/S-149/2023-24 for the seized vehicle BOL MAXX UP JD Pick up having registration No.J.H.-01/FJ-2568, has been dismissed.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that on 18.05.2024, information was received from an informer that cattle i.e. cows and bulls stuffed in a pickup vehicle were going from Jashpur to Jharkhand for slaughter in a slaughterhouse. On receiving the information, police along with staff and witnesses were deployed at the inter-state agricultural forest produce market check post barrier Lodam. When an attempt was made to stop the pickup vehicle number JH-01-FJ-2568, it started running towards village Konbira at a faster speed and on seeing the police chasing it, it left the pickup vehicle near Konbira police station and ran away. On going near the pickup vehicle, it was found that 10 cattles were cruelly tortured by cramming them into cages and tying ropes around their legs and necks. The vehicle used in the above incident JH-01-FJ-2568 and 10 cattle were seized and a crime was registered against the accused driver. The pickup vehicle was seized at the spot and the pickup and the cattle were brought to the police station for safety. The petitioner has filed an application for release of the aforesaid vehicle before the Court below which has been rejected by order dated 19/11/2024 and the aforesaid order was subjected to criminal revision which too has been rejected. Hence this petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Jashpur, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and against the law and facts. He would next contend that the order dated 21.08.2024 has been passed by the

¶22

3 / 5

¶23

District Magistrate, Jashpur without analyzing and examining the available documentary evidence, which is not sustainable. He would next contend that the District Magistrate, Jashpur, without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to present his case, has taken action to confiscate the vehicle, which is not sustainable under any circumstances. He would next contend that the trial in the case is currently pending and the matter has not been resolved. In such circumstances, the confiscation proceedings are illegal and cannot be sustained as the same is against the provisions of Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2004). Therefore, the order dated 21.04.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Jashpur, deserves to be quashed

¶24

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order passed by the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

¶26

Section 6 of the Act, 2004 reads as under:-

¶27

Prohibition on transport of Agricultural cattle for 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

¶28

4 / 5

¶29

provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so slaughtered.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(3) The vehicle or conveyance so seized under subsection (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 and such vehicle shall also be liable for confiscation at the end of the trial.

¶32

Section 6(3) of the Act, 2004, provides that “the vehicle or conveyance so seized shall not be released before the expiry of six months 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.”

¶33

In the present case, the confiscation order has been passed during the pendency of the criminal trial, which is contrary to the clear statutory

¶34

5 / 5

¶35

provision that confiscation may be effected only at the end of the trial. Accordingly, the confiscation order and the revision order affirming it are unsustainable in law. In view of the above, the orders impugned are set aside and the vehicle bearing registration no. JH 01 FJ 2568 is directed to be released forthwith in favour of the petitioner as interim custody on the following conditio ns:-

¶36

(i) Before release of the vehicle, the documents pertaining to ownership of the said vehicles be verified and proper Panchnama of the vehicles be made.

¶37

(ii) Photographs of the vehicles should be taken and bond should also be produced that the vehicles would be produced as and when required.

¶38

(iii) Proper security i.e. personal bond of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) and equivalent surety be obtained before release of vehicle.

¶39

(iv) He shall file an affidavit giving undertaking that he shall not use aforesaid vehicles for illegal transportation of sand.

¶40