The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition held that it is not disputed that the power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C is not properly and widely used by the court below while passing the orders. The power conferred under Section 451 of Cr.P.C be exercised by the court below with judicious mind and without any unnecessarily delay.
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Omprakash.
The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief (s):‐
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by Commissioner Ayodhya, in Case No 2243 of 2023. “Omprakash Vs State of U.P through District Magistrate Computerized Case under Section 5-A(8) Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaugher Act, 1955 (contained as annexure No 6) as well as order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, in Case No. 4705/2022 “State Vs Omprakash” Computerized No D202204230004705 under Section 5-A Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as order dated 25.4.2023 passed by the Session Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Revision No 49/2023 related to Crime No 322/2022, under Section 3/5ka/5kha/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, pertaining to Police Station- Raunahi, District-Ayodhya/Faizabad as contained as Annexure no 2 and 3 to the petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to stay the operation and implementation of the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by Commissioner Ayodhya, in Case No 2243 of 2023, “Omprakash Vs State of U.P through District Magistrate”. Computerized Case No C202304000002243, under Section 5-A(8) Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaugher Act, 1955 (contained as annexure No 6) as well as order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, in Case No 4705/2022 “State Vs Omprakash” Computerized No D202204230004705 under Section 5-A Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as order dated 25.4.2023 passed by the Session Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Revision No 49/2023 related to Crime under Section 3/5ka/5kha/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, pertaining to Police Station- Raunahi, District-Ayodhya/Faizabad as contained as Annexure no 2 and 3 and further the Court may kindly be pleased to release the confiscated vehicle in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 13.09.2022 police of Police Station Raunhai lodged an F.I.R bearing Case under Section 3/5/5kha/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad/Ayodhya against two accused persons. As per prosecution case 01 calf was recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner. The accused persons were carrying the said calf for the purpose to sell and they could not show the papers of the vehicles.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and the petitioner is plying his business by the said vehicle as a hire purchase, the same was seized by the police.
Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner moved release application before the District Magistrate, Ayodhya and the Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 17.03.2023 on the basis of the report submitted by the police and further directed to the police authorities to make the public auction of the confiscated vehicle in an arbitrary manner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision against the order dated 17.03.2023 before the District and Session Judge, Faizabad, who vide order dated 25.04.2023 dismissed the said revision affirming the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya.
Counsel for the petitioner said that the petitioner is facing great jeopardize due to confiscated of vehicle by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya and his livelihood is depend upon the said vehicle and the petitioner was not able to give the installments of the said vehicle because that was purchased on loan and the said vehicle is the main source of earning and now his family has come at the verge of starvation.
Counsel for the petitioner further said that the petitioner is ready to comply with all the conditions, which the lower court will impose while releasing the vehicle. Undisputedly, petitioner is the rightful owner of the vehicle, therefore, the vehicle be released in his favour and the impugned order be quashed.
Per contra, A.G.A submitted that the vehicle in question was being used for transportation of bulls illegally at the time of alleged offence and the vehicle in question was correctly seized by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, vide its order dated 17.03.2023. Thus, the District Magistrate, Ayodhya has rightly passed the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 and there is no illegality and the appeal was rightly dismissed, no interference is required.
The Court opined that, it is not disputed that the power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C is not properly and widely used by the court below while passing the orders. The power conferred under Section 451 of Cr.P.C be exercised by the court below with judicious mind and without any unnecessarily delay. So that the litigant may not suffer, merely keeping the article in the custody of the police in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of the property be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the remaining period for which the property is being made.
The Court further opined that, the procedure as contemplated under Section 457 of Cr.P.C be also followed promptly, so that the concerned Magistrate may take prompt decision for disposal of such properties and be released in favour of the entitled person of the said property, keeping the said property in the custody will not solve any purpose and that gives a mental and financial torture to the owner of the said property which is also against the law and against the principles of natural justice.
The Court observed that,
As per the legal propositions mentioned above and keeping in view this fact that undisputedly the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle and the ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute neither the State or any other person has claimed their ownership over the vehicle, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle stationed at the police station in the open yard for a long period allowing it to be damaged with the passage of time.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference by the court.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner Ayodhya, in Case under Section 5-A(8) Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaugher Act, 1955 as well as order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, in Case under Section 5-A Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as order dated 25.4.2023 passed by the Session Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Revision related to Crime under Section 3/5ka/5kha/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, pertaining to Police Station-Raunahi, District-Ayodhya/Faizabad are set aside and reversed.
The Court directed District Magistrate, Ayodhya to release the vehicle in question forthwith in favour of the petitioner.
The Court further directed the petitioner to give a bank guarantee of Rs 50,000/- before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya and file a bond that he shall be producing the vehicle as and when needed by the criminal courts or the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, and he shall not make any changes nor any variation in the vehicle.