Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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