- (1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 1.7.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in P.C.R. Case No. 84 of 2011 whereby and whereunder prayer of the petitioner for release of the truck bearing registration no. WB -15A -5376 seized by the S.P.C.A. Inspector was rejected.
(2.) WHILE the truck bearing registration no. WB -15A -5376 was carrying six animals and 27 bulls from East Champaran to Pandua Pashu Hat, Hooghly, West Bengal for the purpose of their slaughter it was intercepted. On inspection being made, it was found that they were being carried in such manner that they were unable to stand/move or breath freely. All the animals were found tied and chained in an unreasonable short and single rope and that they have not been provided with proper food, water and medicine and as such, they were subjected to pain and suffering during transportation. Thus, it has been alleged that animals were being carried in violation of Sections 3/4 and 4(a)4(b)(2) of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act II of 1956. On such allegation, vehicle was seized and was handed over to Rajganj Police Station and a case was lodged. Upon completion of the investigation, prosecution report was submitted under Sections 3/11 (1)(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(i)(k)/29(4)(b)/29(1)(2)(3)(5) and 38(3) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and also under Rules 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56, 95/97 of Cattle Transportation Rules, 1978 as well as Sections 3/4 and 4(a)1 4(b)(2) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1956 and also under Sections 3, 4(a), 51 12(1)(2) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. Thereupon an application for release of the vehicle was filed by one Suresh Sahani claiming to be holder power of attorney given by the owner of the vehicle. That prayer was rejected on 1.7.2011 taking into account the allegation made in the first information report.
(3.) IT was submitted by Mr. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in custody of the police but the court below did not consider the case from the said angle and rejected the prayer which is quite illegal and is fit to be set aside.;