The document summarizes a court judgment from a Sessions Court in Kamrup, Assam, India. The judgment allows the appeal of Hemanta Mahanta, granting him interim custody of 3 bulls seized by police during investigation of a case against him under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act. The court found that Mahanta provided valid purchase receipts showing he was the lawful owner of the bulls, and the investigating officer's report stated the bulls were not needed for further investigation. The court modified the lower court's order denying custody, allowing custody to Mahanta upon payment of a bond and maintenance charges.
The document summarizes a court judgment from a Sessions Court in Kamrup, Assam, India. The judgment allows the appeal of Hemanta Mahanta, granting him interim custody of 3 bulls seized by police during investigation of a case against him under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act. The court found that Mahanta provided valid purchase receipts showing he was the lawful owner of the bulls, and the investigating officer's report stated the bulls were not needed for further investigation. The court modified the lower court's order denying custody, allowing custody to Mahanta upon payment of a bond and maintenance charges.
The document summarizes a court judgment from a Sessions Court in Kamrup, Assam, India. The judgment allows the appeal of Hemanta Mahanta, granting him interim custody of 3 bulls seized by police during investigation of a case against him under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act. The court found that Mahanta provided valid purchase receipts showing he was the lawful owner of the bulls, and the investigating officer's report stated the bulls were not needed for further investigation. The court modified the lower court's order denying custody, allowing custody to Mahanta upon payment of a bond and maintenance charges.
The document summarizes a court judgment from a Sessions Court in Kamrup, Assam, India. The judgment allows the appeal of Hemanta Mahanta, granting him interim custody of 3 bulls seized by police during investigation of a case against him under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act. The court found that Mahanta provided valid purchase receipts showing he was the lawful owner of the bulls, and the investigating officer's report stated the bulls were not needed for further investigation. The court modified the lower court's order denying custody, allowing custody to Mahanta upon payment of a bond and maintenance charges.
Jinder Hussain, M. Haque, L. Hussain and H. Rahman
Ld. Advocates for the appellant
Sri N. Baishay Ld. Addl. P.P. for the Respondent No.1
None has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2
2
Date of Argument:- 04.01.2023
Date of Judgment: - 06.01.2023
J U D G M E N T
1. The instant appeal has been filed u/s 12 of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 R/W section 457/451 of the Cr.P.C. by the appellant Hemanta Mahanta @ Himanata Mahanta challenging the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon in connection with Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 694/2022 whereby the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer of zimma of the seized cattle.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that ASI Matleb Ali of Chhaygaon PS
intercepted the TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-FC- 1170 loaded with 03 numbers of bulls on 02.12.2022 during patrolling at Kharabhanga and seized the same without issuing copy of seizure list to the driver/accused and thereafter an FIR vide Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 694/2022 was registered u/s 379/411 of IPC R/W section 13 of Assam Cattle Preservation Act R/W section 11 of PCA Act and the accused/driver was forwarded to Court for judicial custody on 02.12.2022.
3. It is contended that the appellant had purchased 03 numbers of bulls
from Garoimari Animal Market under Chhaygaon Police station on 01.12.2022 from Somej Uddin and Foijuddin of village-Tukrapara and Hatishola respectively for agricultural purpose and brought the same to his house on the same day and on the next day morning i.e. 02.12.2022, the appellant hired a vehicle bearing registration No. AS- 01-FC-1170 and asked the accused/driver to shift the bulls to his 3
Pam House at Dekapara, P.S. Chhaygaon in the district of Kamrup,
Assam for grazing. It is contended that accordingly the accused/driver was carrying the bulls at about 7 AM and while he reached at Kharabhanga towards Dekapara, the police intercepted the vehicle and the bulls and at the time of interception, the accused could not produce the bull purchased receipts as because the receipts were in the possession of the appellant who did not accompany the accused/driver in the vehicle. It is contended that on the same day i.e. 02.12.2022 at about 12 hours, although the appellant produced the bull purchased receipts, the I/O did not release the accused along with the bulls and seized the vehicle since the case has already been registered.
4. It is contended that the seized bulls are neither the stolen property nor the same were carried unauthorizely, but the police has seized the same on suspicion and illegally shifted the bulls to Gaushala. It is contended that thereafter the appellant filed a petition in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon stating the aforesaid facts and circumstances, but the same was rejected by the Ld. Court below vide impugned order dated 17.12.2022 in view of section 11(5) of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021.
5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated
17.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Court below the petitioner has preferred this revision on the following grounds:-
(i) That the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon in Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 694/2022 is not sustainable in law and facts. (ii) That the Ld. Court below has misread and misconstrued the provisions u/s 11(5) of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 while passed the impugned order. 4
(iii) That the Ld. Court below did not apply the judicious mind and also did not consider the fact that the seized bulls were duly purchased by the appellant and the same are not stolen property. The Ld. Magistrate did not consider the fact that the bulls were not transported unauthorizely as the same were being transported within the district after duly purchased by the appellant and on the way to his Pam house for grazing, the police intercepted the vehicle on suspicion. To that effect the appellant filed the copies of bull purchased receipts and the I/O also submitted his report as called for, but the Ld. Magistrate without considering the report of the I/O rejected the petition of the appellant. (iv) That there is no material in the case in hand for the satisfaction of the Ld. Magistrate to presume that a prima facie offence under Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 has been committed which prevented the Ld. Magistrate to release the seized bull as per section 11(5) of the said act. 6. Heard arguments of both sides. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is the owner of the seized bulls and he is bonafide purchaser and has submitted receipts of purchase of bulls and also showed the original of the receipts before this appellate court. It is further submitted that Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon has not considered the prayer for custody of the 03 nos. of bulls in view of provision of section 11(5) of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. It is further submitted that as from the purchase receipts it reveals that the appellant is the bonafide purchaser and as such no prima facie offence is made out under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 and therefore, section 11(5) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 cannot be a bar for giving custody of the cattle to its lawful owner. The Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 694/2022 was called for and the same is received. I have gone through the available materials of the said record as well as the 5
available materials of this appeal petition. I have also gone through
the copy of the receipts submitted by the appellant by which he had purchased the bulls from the open market. I have also gone through the report of the I/O dated 13.12.22 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has submitted valid documents in respect of the seized 3 (three) numbers of cattle (bulls) and after verifying the documents it is found that the actual owner of the seized 3(three) numbers of bulls is Hemanta Mahanta and the seized bulls is not required for further investigation of the instant case. 7. After going through the available materials on record including the receipts submitted by the appellant, I am of the opinion that the appellant is the prima facie bonafide purchaser and prima facie owner of the seized cattle. Therefore, under such context if we read section 11 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 read with section 451 of Cr.P.C., I am of the opinion that the Court has ample power to pass necessary order in respect of the custody of any articles seized during the pendency of the inquiry or trial. In the instant case the seized article is bulls which requires proper care and maintenance. Ld. Cousel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant is ready to pay the legitimate maintenance of the cattle and if the cattle is not given custody at this stage, then the appellant will suffer huge loss. Under the above circumstance I am of the opinion that the impugned order requires modification. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.12.2022 is modified to the extent that the appellant Hemanta Mahanta @ Mimanata Mahanta is allowed interim custody of three numbers of bulls which were seized by the Investigating Agency in connection with Chhaygaon P.S. Case No. 694/22 on execution of a bond of Rs. 95,000-/ and also on condition of payment of maintenance charges as per rule. 8. With the above observation this appeal stands disposed of. The case record of Chhaygaon PS Case No. 694/2022 be returned to the Ld. 6
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon along with a copy of
this judgment. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingaon shall pass necessary direction to the I/O in the light of this judgment in order to give effect of interim custody of seized bulls in question.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 6th day of January, 2023.
