Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Court Should Not Hesitate in Exercising Power under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. : Gauhati High Court Grants Custody of Seized Cattle And emphasizes the necessity of applying Cr.P.C. provisions in Assam Cattle Preservation Act cases.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Gauhati High Court has granted custody (zimma) of seized cattle to petitioner Mujibur Rahman, setting aside an earlier order by the Magistrate that refused zimma on the grounds of necessity for further investigation. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury’s judgment underscores the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) provisions for the disposal of property during the enquiry and trial, aligning with the principles laid down in the case of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat.

Background: The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by Mujibur Rahman against the State of Assam, challenging the refusal of zimma of cattle seized under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. The petitioner argued that the cattle were legally purchased from a registered cattle market and presented the purchase receipt to the Investigating Officer (I.O.). The learned Magistrate had earlier refused to grant zimma on the grounds that the cattle might be necessary for further investigation. The petitioner, represented by Mr. N.J. Dutta, sought relief from the High Court, asserting that the provisions under Chapter XXXIV of Cr.P.C. should govern the disposal of the property during enquiry and trial.

Court Observations and Views:

Power of Magistrate and Applicable Law: The court analyzed the legislative framework of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, and the provisions under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. Justice Choudhury observed that while Section 11 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act pertains to the power of search and seizure, it does not provide specific guidelines for the disposal of property during the enquiry and trial stages. Thus, the disposal of seized property must adhere to the relevant Cr.P.C. provisions.

“The power under Section 11 of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 relates to search and seizure, not disposal of property during trial,” Justice Choudhury stated. “Disposal of property during enquiry/trial is governed by Chapter XXXIV of Cr.P.C.”

Application of Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Principles: The court highlighted the significance of the principles established in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat, which advocate for the expeditious and judicious disposal of seized property to avoid unnecessary suffering or loss. The court mandated the preparation of a proper panchnama, taking photographs, and executing a bond to ensure the return of the cattle if required.

“The application for zimma of seized material shall be dealt expeditiously and judiciously, with the object that the owner of the seized article should not suffer for it remaining unused or by its misappropriation,” Justice Choudhury emphasized.

Justice Choudhury elucidated that the Assam Cattle Preservation Act’s provision under Section 11(5) is only applicable during the initial seizure stage and does not extend to the entire duration of the enquiry and trial. Consequently, the provisions of Chapter XXXIV of the Cr.P.C. should be invoked for the disposal of property during these stages.

“Section 11 of the Act, 2021, more particularly, Sub Section 1, is enacted to deal with the power of search and seizure for enforcing the provisions of the Act,” the court noted. “Therefore, Chapter XXXIV of Cr.P.C., especially Sections 451 and 457, shall be applicable in cases under the Act, 2021.”

Justice Choudhury remarked, “The provisions of Chapter XXXIV of the Cr.P.C., more particularly, Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., shall be applicable in a case under the Act, 2021 as there is no specific provision for disposal of property during enquiry and trial in the Act.”

Decision: The Gauhati High Court’s decision to grant zimma of the seized cattle to the petitioner Mujibur Rahman is a significant ruling that emphasizes the proper application of the Cr.P.C. provisions for the disposal of property during legal proceedings. This judgment not only aligns with established legal principles but also ensures that individuals do not suffer undue hardship due to prolonged possession of their property by the authorities. The court’s application of the Sunderbhai Ambala Desai principles underscores its commitment to judicious and timely justice.

Date of Decision: 22nd May 2024

Mujibur Rahman vs. The State of Assam

Latest Legal News