Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court on Friday while setting aside a confiscation order relating to a truck loaded with 17 cow progeny, held that since the said truck was confiscated on account of the criminal proceedings alone, therefore, under the applicable law, the vehicle could not be withheld and then confiscated by the State, when the original proceedings had culminated into acquittal.

It was further noted that once an order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges, the confiscation of the truck when the accused was acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounted to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A.

"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", observed the top court.

One Abdul Wahab's truck, loaded with 17 cow progeny, was intercepted and the driver of the vehicle, Surendra and one other person, Nazir, sitting in the truck were arrested.

Accordingly, a case was registered against him and the two other under for offences under Sections 4 and 9 of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 read with Section 11 (d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The trial court on evaluation of evidence, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the primary ingredient of the charge, that the cow progeny was being transported “for the purpose of its slaughter” and as such no offence was made out under the 2004 Act.

However, the District Magistrate ordered confiscation of the Vahab's truck, for violation of section 6 of the 2004 Act despite being apprised of the acquittal of the accused persons by the Trial Court.

This confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate, Agar Malwa, purporting to exercise of powers under Section 11(5) of the Act of 2004 and Rule 5 of the M.P Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 came to be challenged before the top court.

The Court of Additional Commissioner, Ujjain and the High Court affirmed the said confiscation order.

A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy noticed that Section 11(4) of the 2004 Act, specifically applied the provisions of CrPC, in relation to search and seizure and Section 11 A(4) empowered the Appellate Authority to release the vehicle at interim stage itself.

In this regard it was held that an erroneous conclusion was drawn on absence of power by the High Court to entertain the petition of the vehicle owner as there was no bar to exercise of jurisdiction of Criminal Courts including the High Court, under Section 482 CrPC.

The bench further found that there was no likelihood that the appellant’s truck would be used for committing similar offence.

Moreover, the court said that confiscation proceeding, before the District Magistrate, were different from criminal prosecution.

"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."

Therefore, the circumstances in the present case were held to be compelling to conclude that the District Magistrate’s order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal), was not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements. The same was thus set aside.

Case Title: ABDUL VAHAB v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH