2022 (3) TMI 1581 - SC - Indian Laws

Confiscation Order of Appellant's truck - exercise of powers Under Section 11(5) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and Rule 5 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 - 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 from the criminal case - onus of proof (shifting burden) - HELD THAT - 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. At this stage, reference made to this Court's opinion in State of W.B. v. Sujit Kumar Rana 2004 (1) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT . Here it was emphasized on the need to maintain balance between statutes framed in public interest such as the Forest Act, 1927 (and the relevant insertions Under W.B. Act 22 of 1988) and the consequential proceedings, depriving a person of his property, arising therefrom. It was accordingly observed that commission of an offence is one of the requisite ingredients for passing an order of confiscation and an order of confiscation should not be passed automatically. Insofar as the submission of the State Counsel that the burden of proof is on the truck owner in the process of confiscation, it is observed that 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. 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. 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 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 - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the confiscation order of the appellant's truck.
2. Applicability of Section 11(5) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and Rule 5 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012.
3. Jurisdiction of criminal courts in confiscation proceedings.
4. Impact of acquittal in criminal prosecution on confiscation proceedings.
5. Burden of proof in confiscation proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Confiscation Order:
The primary challenge in this appeal is to the Confiscation Order dated 09.08.2017 for the Appellant's truck, passed by the District Magistrate, Agar Malwa, under Section 11(5) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (the 2004 Act) and Rule 5 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012. The confiscation order was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, and the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, and later upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

2. Applicability of Section 11(5) of the 2004 Act and Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules:
The appellant's truck was intercepted carrying 17 cow progeny, leading to the registration of Crime No. 102/2013 for offences under Sections 4 and 9 of the 2004 Act and Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused, concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the primary ingredient of the charge that the cow progeny was being transported "for the purpose of its slaughter." Despite this, the District Magistrate ordered the truck's confiscation for violating Section 6 of the 2004 Act.

3. Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in Confiscation Proceedings:
The High Court upheld the confiscation order, observing that separate proceedings for prosecution and confiscation are legally maintainable. The impugned judgment relied on cases under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, particularly State of M.P. v. Smt. Kallo Bai, which clarified that confiscatory proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings. However, the Supreme Court noted that the 2004 Act does not have a non obstante clause like the Forest Act, 1927, which creates a bar on the jurisdiction of criminal courts. Section 11(4) of the 2004 Act specifically applies the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing the High Court to entertain petitions under Section 482 of the Code.

4. Impact of Acquittal in Criminal Prosecution on Confiscation Proceedings:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the confiscation of the appellant's truck, despite the acquittal in criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of property and violates Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court highlighted that the objective of the 2004 Act is punitive and deterrent, and the District Magistrate should consider the acquittal judgment while deciding the confiscation proceeding. The confiscation order was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with legal requirements, given the lack of evidence connecting the accused with the charges.

5. Burden of Proof in Confiscation Proceedings:
The State's counsel argued that the burden of proof is on the truck owner in confiscation proceedings under Section 13A of the 2004 Act. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 13A, which shifts the burden of proof, applies to prosecution, not confiscation proceedings. The burden remains on the State to legally justify the confiscation order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the confiscation order of the District Magistrate and the High Court's decision, allowing the appeal without any order on cost. The Court concluded that the confiscation proceedings under the 2004 Act do not oust the jurisdiction of criminal courts, and the High Court was competent to entertain the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The confiscation of the appellant's truck, despite the acquittal in criminal prosecution, was arbitrary and violated the constitutional right to property under Article 300A.