The Aryavarth Express
Aryavarth (Jammu and Kashmir): The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has set aside the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, and the Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch, concerning the forfeiture of a vehicle in a case related to animal cruelty. The court has remanded the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh examination in light of the applicable legal provisions.
The case pertains to an FIR registered against the petitioner, Qadeer Hussain, under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Upon the petitioner pleading guilty to the charges, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, directed the forfeiture of the petitioner’s vehicle, bearing registration number JK12 5099, to the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Poonch, under Rule 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017.
Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch, which was dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashment of both the orders passed by the lower courts.
The High Court, after hearing the arguments and perusing the record, observed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had relied upon Rule 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, which pertains only to the status of the animal upon disposal of litigation and could not have been applied for the forfeiture of the vehicle.
The court noted that while the appellate court had referred to Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the disposal of property at the conclusion of a trial, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not relied on this statutory provision while ordering the forfeiture of the vehicle.
The High Court emphasized that Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to pass an appropriate order for the disposal of property by destruction, confiscation, or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to its possession. The court must have due regard to the entitlement claimed by the person seeking possession of the property.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the High Court stated that the object and scheme of the Code’s provisions appear to be that where the property seized by the police has been the subject matter of an offence, it should not be retained in the custody of the court or the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary.
The High Court also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Suryanarayanan & Anr, which held that the authority entrusted to the court under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is judicial in nature and must be exercised for valid reasons, keeping in view the class and nature of the property and the material before the court.
In light of these legal principles, the High Court concluded that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, was legally flawed, and the finding recorded by the appellate authority upholding the said order was also legally unsustainable.
The High Court quashed the orders passed by both the lower courts and remanded the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch, to examine the issue afresh in conformity with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, coupled with Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, within a period of six weeks.
