Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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