Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the provisions of the Amended Act clearly mention the applicability of Section 6A(3) to the class of animals as given in Section 5 (1A) of the Principal Act, viz., cow, the calf of a cow, bull and bullock, however, this section nowhere mentions 'buffalo calves' which have been found in the seized vehicle. According to him, in the absence of prohibited categories of animals as aforesaid, invoking of Section 68(3) for not releasing the vehicle of the appellant before the expiry of six months from the date of seizure is not sustainable in law.
8. In context of the above, it ic; relevant to note that on 12.10.2011, an amendment was brought in the Principal Act which was called the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011. By virtue of this Amendment Act, a new Section 6A was brought in the Principal Act. We have already extracted Section 6A of the Amended Act.
9. Sub-section (3) of Section 6A of the Amended Act stipulates that whenever any person transports in contravention of provisions of Sub-section (1), any animal as specified in Section 5(1A), such vehicle or any conveyance used in .-H transporting such animal, shall be liable to be seized by the MULTAN! HANIFBHAI KALUBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] authority/officer concerned. It .is brought to our notice that the A vehicle which has been impounded by the respondents was not carrying the category of animals which has been laid down under Section 5(1A). The vehicle in question was transporting the 'buffalo calves'.
10. A perusal of the FIR shows that one Sajidkhan Pirmohemmed Multani, driver of the vehicle and Rajubhai Kalubhai Multani had been passing from Sector 30 of Gandhinagar, Gujarat. The police tried to stop the said vehicle but when they did not stop, they followed and intercepted the same; On search being made inside +.he vehicle, they found 28 C buffalo calves. Respondent No.2 herein arrested both the persons and seized Eicher Truck bearing Registration No. GJ- 9-Z-3801, which is the vehicle in question.
11. The courts below rejected the application filed by the D appellant for release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 68(3) of the Amendment Act, the vehicle of the appellant shall not be released before the expiry of six months from the date of its seizure. On going through the relevant provisions, we are of the E view that the Courts below including the High Court grossly erred by overlooking the correct position of law as stated in Section 6A(3). Sub-section 1A of Section 5 stipulates the schedule of animals which are as under: (a) (b) (c) (d) a cow; the calf of a r:ow, whether male or female and if male, whether castrated or not; a bull; a bullock. It is clear from the above description of animals that the buffalo calf does not fall under the list of prohibited animals. We have already noted and it is not in dispute that th~ vehicle in que~tion H was carrying 28 buffalo calves. Thus, Section 68(3) of the Amendment Act cannot be invoked in order to deny the claim of release of the vehicle before the expiry of six months from the date of its seizure.
12. It is true that Section 5(1) prohibits slaughtering of any animal without a certificate in writing from the Competent Authority that the animal is fit for slaughter. In other words, without a certificate from competent authority, no animal could be slaughtered. Sub-section (1A) to Section 5 mandates that no certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in respect C of the abovementioned animals. In the said section, admittedly, 'buffalo calf has not been mentioned as prohibited animal. In such circumstance, the prohibition relating to release of veh~cle before a period of six months as mentioned in Section 68(3) of the Amendment Act is not applicable since the appellant was D transporting 28 buffalo calves only. In view of the same, it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the police station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions. In addition to the above interpretation, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle in the police station for a long period.
13. In the light of the above conclusion, order dated 24.08.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9 of 2012, order dated 01.09.2012, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 73 of 2012 and order dated 25.09.2012, passed by the High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2755 of 2012 are set aside and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle – Eicher G Truck bearing Regn. No. GJ-9-Z-3801 forthwith.
14. The appeal is allowed. 8.8.8. Appeal allowed.