1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP.
2 Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the amendment carried out in the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 by amending Act, namely, Gujarat Act No.28 of 2011, inserting Section 6A[1][2][b][3][4] will not apply to any animal not specified under sub-section [1A] of Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, restriction imposed in sub-section [4] of Section 6A of the Amending Act of not releasing the vehicle seized has no relevance in view of language of sub-section [4] of Section 6A which specifically makes applicable to the vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-section [3], which again refers to contravention of sub-section [1A] of section 5 of the Act. It is submitted that the applicants have produced relevant documents showing that the livestock was carried and transported for the purpose other than slaughtering and the applicants have shown valid purchase transaction, including whereabouts of the applicants. In view of the above, it is submitted that custody of the vehicles in question may be ordered by imposing suitable conditions.
3. Learned APP is not in a position to dispute the above legal and factual position.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at the most the allegations against the applicants in each of the cases is of cruel treatment to the animals and transporting them without permit and further in a vehicle they were placed beyond the capacity of the vehicle to carry such live stock. Against this, the applicants had produced all details about purchase of animals from Animal Fair, certificate issued by the Sarpanch of village, certificate of the medical officer, revenue record of their agricultural holding and no claim affidavit of the parties, who were allegedly involved in the offence. Thus, the courts below erred in applying provisions of amended Act viz. Act No.28 of 2011 and admittedly livestock was not taken for slaughter purpose. Therefore, I am inclined to allow all these applications by quashing and setting aside the orders impugned in each of the applications. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to release the muddamal vehicles, a list of details is given herein below, upon the applicants furnishing individual undertaking stating that they will not transfer or alienate ownership of the vehicles and that they will produce the vehicles in question in each of cases, as and when required, and upon furnishing solvency of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lakh only] in each of the cases, to the satisfaction of the authority.
S.No.
Case No.
Name of Applicant Truck No.
Cri.
Misc. Appln. No. 6345/2012 Sunsara Mustakbhai Abbasbhai GJ-24-U-2180 TATA 1613 LPT 2 Cri.
Misc. Appln. No. 6346/2012 Desai Jitubhai Karamshibhai GJ-24-V-1451 EICHER 11.10 Cri.
Misc. Appln. No. 6347/2012 Rabari Bhagabhai Ramabhai GJ-24-U-1058 TATA 1613 LPT 4 Cri.
Misc. Appln. No. 6348/2012 Abdulsalim Narubhai Dauva GJ-24-U-5524 TATA 1613 LPT 5 Cri.
Misc. Appln. No. 6356/2012 Ismail Sulemanbhai Gadhiya GJ-24-U-4231 TATA 1613 LPT 6 Cri.
Misc. Appln. No. 6357/2012 Jitendrabhai Karamshibhai Desai GJ-24-U-4232 TATA 1613 LPT 7 Cri.
Misc. Appln. No. 6358/2012 Bauddin Hayatkhan Sipai GJ-24-U-2800 TATA 1613 TURBO 8 Cri.
Misc. Appln. No. 6359/2012 Desai Panchabhai Chhelabhai GJ-24-V-4754 TATA 1613 LPT All these applications are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top