[2025:RJ-JP:13563] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 754/2025 Sher Mohammad @ Sheru Mohammad Son Of Shri Chhutmal, Resident Of Village Naharika, Police Station Firojpur Jhirka, District Nuh, Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Ramesh Chand Son Of Sarvmukh, Resident Of Manauta, Police Station Gopalgarh, District Deeg. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd Shakir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 25/03/2025 1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 B.N.S.S. with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kama, District Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.162/2018, whereby the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C have been ordered to be initiated and standing arrest warrants have been issued against the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused only on the ground that he is the registered owner of the vehicle which [2025:RJ-JP:13563] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-754/2025] was involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has no control and supervision over the vehicle in question and already handed over the possession of the vehicle to some other person by a power of attorney. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has referred the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (hereinafter is to be referred to as 'the Act of 1995') and the definition of the Transporter is given under Section 2(n) of the Act of 1995. He further submits that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle, which was involved in commission of the offence, is also an accused in view of the aforesaid provisions. 4. Heard. 5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 6. It is not disputed that the accused-petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle which was involved in commission of the said offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already handed over the vehicle in question to one Islam by executing an agreement/sale agreement. The alleged sale agreement has also been placed on record by the accused-petitioner as Annexure-3. The said document is neither the registered document nor has been attested by the Notary. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 09.10.2010 and the agreement to sale is said to have been executed on 10.06.2008. [2025:RJ-JP:13563] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-754/2025] The petitioner did not care about transferring the ownership of the said vehicle to the Transport Department for about two years. 7. Section 6 of the Act of 1995 provides that whenever the bovine animals are transported by any means of transport in furtherance of the object of commission of any offence under this Act, the Transporter shall be guilty of abetment of the said offence and shall be liable for the same punishment as is provided under Section 8 of the Act for person committing the said offence. 8. The definition of Transporter is given in Section 2(n) of the Act of 1995, which reads as under:- "(n) "transporter" means and includes,— (a) in the case of a goods carriage as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), — (i) the owner, if the booking is undertaken under his instruction or with his knowledge; (ii) the person for the time being incharge of the vehicle; (iii) the person for the time being incharge of booking of goods or livestock; (iv) the Managing Director, Executive Director, General Manager or Chief Executive or any other person incharge of business, as the case may be, (where the owner is a company) when the bookings are undertaken his instruction or with his knowledge; (v) the partner, in the case of a partnership firm, if the booking is undertaken under his instruction or with his knowledge; (b) in the case of Railway Goods Train, - (i) the person for the time being incharge of booking of goods and livestock at a Railway Station; and/or (ii) the person who prepares Railway Receipts at a Railway Station; (c) the consignee to whom the livestock is to be delivered; and (d) in any other case, the person carrying or accompanying the livestock." 9. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question amd there is no legally valid document on record, which could show that the petitioner has already transferred the vehicle to some other person. The petitioner who is the registered owner [2025:RJ-JP:13563] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-754/2025] of the vehicle shall be treated to be a Transporter and is liable for prosecution, as per the provisions of the Act of 1995. The Police after completion of the investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the alleged offences under the provisions of Section 299 Cr.P.C. as the accused-petitioner was hiding himself and was not reachable to the Police. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Court below. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 12. Since the main petition is dismissed, the stay application and pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA ),J ARTI SHARMA /89