Sonia Gokani, J.:— The petitioner is the owner of the Truck bearing Registration No. RJ-49-GA-0030 and doing the business of transporting the same. It is the say of the petitioner that the sa id truck of the petitioner was hired by one Sherkhan Haji Sohbat, residing at Rajasthan. Under the ‘Vanbandhu Kalyan Projtect’, the Vadodara District Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., gave contract to supply cows and buffaloes to the said person, viz. Sherkhan Haji Sohbat. The petitioner's truck came to be detained by Godhra Town Police Station and the driver along with Sherkhan Haji was arrested. The petitioner when came to know about the same, he made a request to release his truck, however, the police did not release the vehicle.
2. An application was moved being Muddamal Application No. 26 of 2016 before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra, under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for obtaining possession of the said truck. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected such an application vide order dated April 05, 2016.
3. The petitioner chose to challenge the legality and validity of the said order by way of approaching Revisional Court. The Revisional Court vide order dated May 18, 2016, confirmed the order of the trial Court and rejected the Revision Application.
4. Aggrieved petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of the orders passed by the Courts below.
5. Shri U.M Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged that the seizure of the truck has taken place on January 17, 2016. The petitioner preferred an application before the concerned Court on March 22, 2016, which ultimately came to be rejected on the ground that before expiry of six months from the date of seizure, the release of the vehicle is not permissible as provided under section 6B(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011. There is a prohibition of slaughter of animals at any place other than the place specified by the authority. There is a prohibition against transport of specified animal for the purpose of its slaughtering in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be so slaughtered. A deeming provision is given, whereby 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. Section 6A(2) also provides that a person may make an application in the prescribed form to the authority or officer referred to in sub-section (1) for grant of permit in writing for transportation of any animal specified in sub-section (1A) of section 5 from any place within the State to any another place within the State. If the concerned authority is of the opinion that grant of permit shall not be detrimental to the object of the Act, it may grant permit in such form and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose. Any person, as per section 6A(3), transports or causes to be transported in contravention of provisions of sub-section (1) any animal as specified in sub-section (1A) of section 5, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting such animal along with such animal shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer appointed by the State Government. Section 5 provides for prohibition against slaughter without certificate from the competent authority and section 5(1A) provides that no certificate under sub-section (7) shall be granted in respect of (a) a cow, (b) the calf of a cow, whether male or female and if male, whether castrated or not, (c) a bull, (d) a bullock. Even in respect of those animals to which sub-section (1A) does not apply, no certificate shall be granted by the competent authority, if in the opinion of the competent authority, the animal is useful or likely to become useful for the purpose of drought or any kind of agricultural operations or for breeding or giving milk or bearing offspring.
6. Sub-section (3) of section 5 provides that the slaughter of any animal for bona fide purpose, if the animal is above the age of fifteen years other than a cow, bull or bullock, is permissible provided there is a certificate from the competent authority. It would be relevant to refer to section 6B of the Act, which reads as under:
“6B. (1) No person shall directly or indirectly sell, keep, store, transport, offer or expose for sell or buy beef products in any form.
(2) Whenever any person transports or causes to be transported the beef or beef products, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting such beef or beef products alongwith such beef or beef products shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.
(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 from the date of such seizure or till the final judgment of the court, whichever is earlier.
[Explanation-For the purpose of this section “beef” means flesh of any animal specified in sub-section (1A) of section 5, in any form.]”
7. Thus, no person is permitted to directly or indirectly sell, keep, store, transport, offer or expose for sell or buy beef products in any form. The person if transports or causes to be transported the beef or beef products, such vehicle or conveyance used in transporting such beef or beef products alongwith such beef or beef products is liable to be seized by the competent authority or the officer as the State Government may appoint. 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 form the date of such seizure or till the final judgment of the court, whichever is earlier.
8. Both the Courts below have denied the permission to release the vehicle interpreting the provisions of section 6, especially section 6B(3). It is to be noted that what was seized and later on released was the live animal stock and not the beef or beef product. Of course, such live stock would have the potency of being slaughtered, but admittedly, neither beef nor the beef products were seized.
9. In such view of the matter, to say that the vehicle or conveyance in which the livestock was transported, seizure would preclude the release of the vehicle necessarily for a period of six months from the date of its seizure requires to be interfered. It is also not the case of the prosecution that what was seized was either the beef or beef product. The apprehension was ventilated that they were being taken for slaughtering, it is still to be decided for the competent Court as to for what purpose they were being transported, but in any case, there was neither beef or beef product. Therefore, the embargo of six months cannot be there in the present case. Even otherwise, the period of six months has already been over in the present case and, therefore also, no statutory embargo remains.
10. If one looks at the law on the subject of release of vehicles used in commission of crime, the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, was primarily dealing with provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code. While quoting the aforesaid two provisions of the Act in the judgment, it was observed as under:
“7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr PC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:
1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.”
11. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution, it was directed by the Apex Court that following measures should be adopted giving instances contained in para 12 of the said decision reproduced hereinbelow:
“12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:
(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles
(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and
(3) after taking proper security.”
12. While dealing with the seized vehicles from time to time by the police either in commission of various offences or abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during investigation of complaint of thefts, the Apex Court observed as under:
“17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.
18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.”
13. For the foregoing reasons and in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the present petition succeeds and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside. The respondent-authority is directed to release the truck bearing Registration No. RJ-49-GA-0030 owned by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.