Rule.
The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the prayer that the impugned order dated 5.4.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Criminal Revision Application 29 of 2012 may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the Petition.
Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vinod M. Gamara for the Petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. Gamara has referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the complaint came to be filed by some persons for the alleged transport of cattle for which the vehicle has been used belonging to the Petitioner. He submitted that the Petitioner is the owner-cum-driver of the Tata 407 Mini Truck bearing registration No. GJ-15 X 1975, which he had purchased by loan. Learned Advocate Mr. Gamara therefore submitted that the vehicle is seized for the contravention of the alleged offence under the Act. However, he submitted that the Petitioner and others are the community which maintain the cattle, and in summer, due to scarcity of water , the cattle are required to be shifted and therefore the provisions of Section 5 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 would not be attracted. Referring to Section 5 of the Act he submitted that it referred to "Prohibition against slaughter without certificate from Competent Authority". Learned Advocate Mr. Gamara submitted that the certificate would be required for the purpose of slaughter for any animal and Section 5(1A) provide that no certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in respect of specified cattle. He submitted that the cattle referred to in his case, which were sought to be transported in the vehicle are not specified in Section 5(1A) but are sheep and goats. Similarly, he submitted that Section 6A referred to "Prohibition of slaughter of animals in places not specified for the purpose". He submitted that Section provide for the transportation of such animals specified in sub-section 1A of Section 5 and the presumption may be made. However, these animals are not covered by sub-section 1A of Section 5 but are covered under Section 5(1) and therefore it has no application. He therefore submitted that the present Petition may be allowed. He submitted that there is no material or evidence to raise even the presumption that the cattle were carried or transported for slaughter.
Learned APP Mr. H.L.Jani referred to Section 5 which provide for the prohibition against the slaughter without certificate from competent authority and Section 6A which referred to prohibition against transportation of specified animals for slaughter. However, he submitted that as provided in Section 6A(1), the permit would be necessary, and therefore, as there was no permit, the present Petition may not be entertained.
In view of this rival submissions and considering the provisions of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, it is required to be considered whether the present Petition can be entertained or not.
From the averments made and the material as well as rival submissions, it is evident that the vehicle Truck was used for transporting the cattle which have not been specified as stated in sub-section 1A of Section
5. Section 6 referred to the prohibition against the transport of the specified animals referred to in sub-section 1A of Section 5. Admittedly, these cattle are not as provided therein. As rightly submitted, the provisions of Section 6A which have been amended, would not be attracted and the restriction imposed with regard to the vehicle seized would not have any relevance in view of the language employed in sub-Section 4 of Section 6A which is applicable to the vehicles or the conveyance so sized under sub-section 3. Therefore, as there is a specific contention raised by the learned Advocate that the cattle referred to are not covered by sub-Section 1A of Section 5 coupled with the fact that it was shifted due to scarcity of water , the present Petition deserves to be allowed for the purpose of release of the vehicle, I.e. Truck used for carrying such cattle. Therefore, the present Petition deserves to be allowed and the vehicle Truck bearing registration No. GJ-15 X 1975 belonging to the Petitioner deserves to be released on a condition that the Petitioner shall not transfer or alienate the ownership of the vehicle and will produce as and when required furnishing the solvency of Rs.20,000/- to the satisfaction of the authority.
The present Petition therefore stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(Rajesh H.
Shukla,J) Jayanti* Top