Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Jurisdiction of High Court under s.482 for quashing of confiscation proceedings under s.11(5) of the M.P Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and Rule 5 of the M.P Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 – In the instant case, appellant’s truck loaded with 17 cow progeny was intercepted and the driver along with other accused was arrested – Case was registered under M.P Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Vehicle was seized – Trial court held that no offence was made out under these Acts – However, District Magistrate ordered confiscation of appellant’s truck, despite the acquittal of appellant and other accused – Appellant filed s.482 petition challenging the confiscation – High Court upheld the order of confiscation with the observation that separate proceedings before two Forums, one for prosecution of the accused charged with the offence and the other for confiscation of the vehicles/equipment used for the commission of the offence, were legally maintainable – High Court further held that jurisdiction under s.482 for quashing of the confiscation proceedings initiated under the 2004 Act was not available – Hence instant appeal – Held: The 2004 Act does not have any non-obstante clause which creates bar on jurisdiction of criminal courts – s.11(4) of the 2004 Act specifically applies the provisions Cr.P.C in realtion to search and seizure – Rules 5 and 6 of the MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 empower the police to seize vehicle, the cow progeny and beef in case of violation of the 2004 Act, as per s.100 of the CrPC – Hence, there is no bar in exercising jurisdiction of Criminal Courts including High Court under s. 482 Cr.P.C – Appellant’s truck was confiscated on account of the criminal proceedings alone and therefore, under the applicable law, the vehicle cannot be withheld and then confiscated by the State, when the original proceedings have culminated into acquittal – Confiscation of the appellant’s truck when he is acquitted in criminal prosecution amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right under Art.300A – Constitution of India – Art.300A. Constitution of India: Art.300A – Depriviation of enjoyment of property – By reason of an order of confiscation, a person is deprived of the enjoyment of his property – Art.300A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law – Therefore, to deprive any person of their property, it is necessary for the State, inter-alia, to establish that the property was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds of crime or the deprivation is warranted for public purpose or public interest.
M.P Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004: s.13A – Confiscation order, justification of – Burden of proof – s.13A of the 2004 Act, which shifts the burden of proof, is not applicable for the confiscation proceedings but for the process of prosecution – By virtue of s.13A of the 2004 Act, the burden on the State authority to legally justify the confiscation order, cannot be shifted to the person facing the confiscation proceeding.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 11(4) of the 2004 Act, specifically applies the provisions of CrPC, in relation to search and seizure and Section 11A(4) empowers the Appellate Authority to release the vehicle at interim stage itself. Rules 5 and 6 of the MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 empower the police to seize vehicle, the cow progeny and beef in case of violation of Sections 4, 5, 6,6A and 6B of the 2004 Act, as per Section 100 of the CrPC. As is discernible, the provisions of CrPC are specifically made applicable in the 2004 Act and the 2012 Rules. Therefore, an erroneous conclusion was drawn on absence of power, to entertain the petition of the vehicle owner. In the context of the proceedings initiated under the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and there being no bar to exercise of jurisdiction of Criminal Courts including the High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court was competent to entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC. [Para 14][319-B-E]
2. By reason of an order of confiscation, a person is deprived of the enjoyment of his property. Article 300A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Therefore, to deprive any person of their property, it is necessary for the State, inter-alia, to establish that the property was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds of crime or the deprivation is warranted for public purpose or public interest. [Para 17][320-E-G]
3. The submission was made by the State that the burden of proof is on the truck owner in the process of confiscation. Section 13A of the 2004 Act, which shifts the burden of proof, is not applicable for the confiscation proceedings but for the process of prosecution. By virtue of Section 13A of the 2004 Act, the burden on the State authority to legally justify the confiscation order, cannot be shifted to the person facing the confiscation proceeding. The contention to the contrary of the State’s counsel, is accordingly rejected. In the present case, the appellant’s truck was confiscated on account of the criminal proceedings alone and therefore, under the applicable law, the vehicle cannot be withheld and then confiscated by the State, when the original proceedings have culminated into acquittal. It is also not the projected case that there is a likelihood that the appellant’s truck will be used for committing similar offence. [Paras 19, 20][321-E-G]
4. The objective of the 2004 Act is punitive and deterrent in nature. Section 11 of the 2004 Act and Rule 5 of M.P Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012, allows for seizure and confiscation of vehicle, in case of violation of sections 4,5,6, 6A and 6B. The confiscation proceeding, before the District Magistrate, is different from criminal prosecution. However, both may run simultaneously, to facilitate speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the means used for committing the offence. The District Magistrate has the power to independently adjudicate cases of violations under Sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B of the 2004 Act and pass order of confiscation in case of violation. But in a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the Criminal Prosecution, the judgment given in the Criminal Trial should be factored in by the District Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding. [Para 21][321-H; 322-A-C]
State of MP. v. Smt. KalloBai (2017) 14 SCC 502; Nitesh s/o Dhannalal v. State of M.P. (2016) SCC Online MP 7622; State of M.P v. Uday Singh (2020) 12 SCC 733 : [2019] 6 SCR 154; State of M.P v. Madhukar Rao 2008
(14) SCC 624 : [2008] 1 SCR 413; Madhukar Rao v. State of MP (2000) 1 MP LJ 289 (FB); State of W.B v. Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129[2004] 1 SCR 870 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.