The Supreme Court observed that the confiscation of a vehicle allegedly involved in cattle smuggling would amount to arbitrary deprivation of property and violate his right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution when the owner himself was acquitted by the trial court in the same case. SC allowed the release of the truck.
“In the present case, the order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the appellant’s truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A,” the top court said.
“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, ” the top court observed.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court order on Friday.
“In view of the foregoing, the confiscation order of the District Magistrate cannot be sustained and it is declared so accordingly. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to the contrary is set aside. The appeal stands allowed with this order without any order on cost, ” the top court said.
The top court allowed Abdul Vahab’s plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court order.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirmed the orders passed by the forums below, while holding that no error has been committed by the District Magistrate in ordering the truck’s confiscation, even after the acquittal of the accused persons from the criminal case.
The top court said that in a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the criminal prosecution, judgment given in the criminal trial should be factored in by the District
Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding.
“Therefore, the circumstances here are compelling to conclude that the District Magistrate’s order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements,” the top court said.
The appellant had challenged the confiscation order dated 09.08.2017 for the appellant’s truck, passed by the District Magistrate, Agar Malwa, purporting to exercise powers under Section 11(5) of the MP Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and Rule 5 of the M.P Govansh Vadh
Pratishedh Rules, 2012. The Confiscation order was affirmed on 22.9.2018 by the Court of Additional Commissioner, Ujjain. The Revision Petition challenging the confiscation order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in the Criminal Revision. The Truck owner preferred a Petition under section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, the High Court affirmed the orders passed by the forums below, while holding that no error has been committed by the District Magistrate in ordering the truck’s confiscation, even after
acquittal of the accused persons in the criminal case.
The appellant’s truck, loaded with 17 calves, was intercepted and the driver of the vehicle, Surendra and one other person, Nazir, sitting in the truck were arrested. Thereafter, case was registered at Police Station Kannad, district Agar Malwa for offences under Sections 4 and 9 of the 2004 Act read with Section 11 (d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short ‘the 1960 Act’). The vehicle was seized and the accused persons, including the truck owner, were charge sheeted for the offences.
However, on the evaluation of evidence, the trial concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the primary ingredient of the charge, that the calves were being transported “for the purpose of its slaughter” and as such no offence was made out under the Act. (ANI)
