Gujarat High Court
Sakinaben Husenbhai Ganchi vs State Of Gujarat on 27 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
NO. 627 of 2025
==========================================================
SAKINABEN HUSENBHAI GANCHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
UMARFARUK M KHARADI(8155) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 27/03/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant has preferred this petition, seeking to
invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order
dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Dahod at Limkheda in Criminal Revision Application No.50 of
2024 as well as the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Baria, Limkheda in Muddamal
Application No.489 of 2024, and thereby to release the
muddamal vehicle.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the
applicant herein owned a vehicle called Mahindra Max bearing
Registration No.GJ-20-U-4058 which came to be seized in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11821050240748 of
2024 registered with Sagtala Police Station for the offence
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
punishable under Sections 5(1)(1a), 6(A)(3), 6(A)(4) and 8(4) of
the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act and Sections 11(1)(D)(E)
(F) & (H) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and
Sections 281 and 54 of BNS, inter alia, alleging therein that the
said vehicle was used in transportation of three cows allegedly
for slaughtering purposes, in contravention of the provisions of
Animal Preservation Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act.
3. Therefore, the applicant preferred an application before
the learned trial court for release of muddamal vehicle,
however, the said application came to be rejected by the
learned trial court vide order dated 03.10.2024.
4. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred revision
application before the revisional court under Section 397 of the
Cr.P.C. being Criminal Revision Application No.50 of 2024, and
the said application also came to be rejected by the revisional
court vide order dated 14.11.2024.
5. Being aggrieved, the applicant is here before this Court
with the present application.
6. Learned advocate Mr. U.M. Kharadi appearing for the
applicant submits that the concurrent findings recorded by
both the courts below are ex facie, illegal, erroneous, arbitrary
and contrary to the settled provisions of law, and as such,
those are required to be quashed and set aside. He further
submits that both the courts below have committed a grave
error in denying the possession of the Muddamal vehicle and
have arrived at the erroneous conclusion only on assumption
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
and presumption that the livestock so transported in the
offending vehicle was for slaughtering purposes without there
being any material to substantiate such allegation. Therefore,
the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section (6) of the Gujarat
Animal Preservation Act ought not to have been applied.
Learned advocate Mr. Kharadi also submits that both the
courts below have failed to appreciate that the applicant is an
agriculturist and neither the applicant nor her husband are
associated with any kind of slaughtering activities. Moreover,
the applicant is a lady and she did not have any knowledge
about her vehicle being used in transporting prohibited
animals, and therefore, benefit of exception carved out in Rule
4(A)D ought to have been given to the applicant. Learned
advocate Mr. Kharadi submits that even if the entire case of
the prosecution is believed in toto, there is no iota of evidence
to suggest that the vehicle seized as Muddamal was used for
transportation of livestock to the slaughter house. Moreover,
the Muddamal vehicle is lying in an idle condition in the police
station, and if the same is not released, then there are all
likelihoods of it being decayed, which would cause great
financial loss to the applicant who is a poor farmer. Under the
aforesaid circumstances, the concurrent findings recorded by
both the courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside.
7. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently
opposed by the learned APP appearing for the State and
submits that the animal (cow) seized from the Muddamal
vehicle alleged to have been transported for slaughtering
purposes is the prohibited animal as specified in Section 6(A)
of the Act, 2017, and as such, there is a specific bar under
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
Sections 6(A) and 6(B) for release of Muddamal being used for
slaughtering purposes. Therefore, the present application may
not be entertained.
8. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the
learned APP for the State.
9. The learned trial court, while dismissing the application,
has recorded the following findings;
“5. To decide the present application, it seems me
expedient to look at the section 6A of the Gujarat Animal
Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017 which reads as
under;
Amendment of Section 6A of the Bom. LXXII of 1954:
In the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, (Bom. LXXII
of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the principal Act”) in
section 6A, for sub-section (4), the following sub-section
shall be substituted, namely;
“(4) The vehicle or any conveyance so seized under sub-
section (3) shall stand forfeited to Government in the
manner as may be prescribed.”
Amendment of Section 6B of the Bom. LXXII of 1954:
In the Principal Act, in section 6B, for sub-section (3), the
following sub-section shall be substituted, namely,“(3) The vehicle or any conveyance so seized under sub-
section (2) shall stand forfeited to Government in the
manner as may be prescribed.”
6. Now, reverting back to the facts of the present case
the accused are alleged to have committed the offence
punishable under Sections 5(1)(1-A), 6A(3), 6A(4), 8(4) of
the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017
and Sections 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f), 11(1)(h) of
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
Animal Cruelty Act, 1960 and the present vehicle is
involved in carrying two cows for slaughtering purposes.
As per the amended provisions aforementioned of the
Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, which was
amended in 2017 and which came into effect from
04.09.2017, the muddamal vehicle is liable to be
forfeited to Government, this being the law the present
application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Hence, I make the following;
ORDER
1. The present application filed by the applicant is
hereby rejected.
2. No order as to costs.”
10. Then, the Revision Court made the following findings;
“(8) I have gone through the entire papers produced by
both the parties as well as the judgment cited by the
learned Advocate of the applicant. On perusal of
provision of Section 6A and 6B of Gujarat Animal
Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017, which is related to
the seizure and confiscation of vehicle or conveyance
are enacted of the said provisions are applicable only in
relation to animals mentioned in Section 5(1A) of the said
Act which includes cow, calf of a cow, bull and bullock. It
is required to quote the said provisions of Section 6A and
6B of the Act which are as under;
6A. Prohibition against transportation of specified
animals for slaughter:-
(1) No person shall transport or offer for transport or
cause to be transported any animal specified in sub-
section (1A) of section 5 from any place within the State
to any another place within the State for the purpose of
its slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act
or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be so
slaughtered:
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
Provided that 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 by such person or he
has obtained a permit under sub-section (2) for
transporting animal for bona fide agricultural or animal
husbandry purpose from such authority or officer as the
State Government may appoint in this behalf.
(2)(a) 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.
(b) If, on receipt of any such application for grant of
permit, such 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 in accordance with such
rules as may be prescribed.
(3) Whenever any person 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 alongwith such animal shall be liable to be
seized by such authority or officer as the State
Government may appoint in this behalf.
(4) The vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-
section (3) shall stand forfeited to Government in the
manner as may be prescribed.
6B. Prohibition against selling or buying beef or beef
products:-
(1) No person shall directly or indirectly sell, keep, store,
transport, offer or expose for sell or buy beef or beef
products in any form.
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
(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.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section “beef”
means flesh of any animal specified in sub-section (1A) of
section 5, in any form.”
(9) Now, looking to the provision of Section 6A of the
said Act, it applies to transportation of specified animal
and Section 6B of the said Act, applies when vehicle or
conveyance is used for transporting beef or beef
products. Now, here-in-this case, looking to the FIR,
seized vehicle alleged to have been used at the time of
offence and therefore, it was seized by the police
authority from the accused, not only that looking to the
FIR, the said vehicle used for transporting the three cows
and therefore, looking to the FIR it prima facie appears
that the seized vehicle was used for transporting the
specified animal of Section 6A of the said Act.
(10) Now, looking to the FIR, it reveals that the said
vehicle was used for transporting the specified animal
under Section 6A of the said Act and therefore, Section
6A(3)(4) will be came into picture and as per Section
6A(3)(4) whenever any person 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 with such animal shall be liable to be seized
by such authority or officer as the State Government may
appoint in this behalf and Section 4 of the said Act,
provides that the said vehicle or conveyance so seized
under sub-section (3) shall stand forfeited o Government
in the manner as may be prescribed.
(11) Now, looking to this clear provision and also looking
the FIR, at this juncture, it prima facie appears that the
said vehicle was used to transport the specified animal
under Section 6A of the said Act, and therefore, learned
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
trial Judge has rightly rejected the said application and
looking to the legal provisions learned trial court has not
committed any error in rejecting the muddamal
application. Hence, I reply the point nos.1 & 2 in the
negative.
Point No.3
(12) In the result, following final order is passed in the
interest of justice.
ORDER
1. The present criminal revision application stands
dismissed.
2. The impugned order dated 03.10.2023 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No.489/24 by the Ld. Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Devgadh-baria dismissing the
application for releasing the muddamal, seized under the
provisions of Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment)
Act, is hereby confirmed.
3. No order as to costs.”
(11) From the findings recorded by both the courts
below, as quoted above, it appears that, no error, not to speak
of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by
both the courts below in passing the impugned orders. Hence, I
am of the opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by
both the courts below do not require any interference at the
end of this Court.
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/627/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2025
undefined
(12) In the result, the present application fails and is hereby
rejected.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Tue Apr 15 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 18 22:29:27 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link