9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the confiscation order was dismissed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in the Criminal Revision No. 211/2018. The Truck owner preferred a Petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 from the criminal case. 4. The necessary facts for the present appeal are that the Appellant'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. Thereafter, Crime No. 102/2013 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 aforementioned offences. 5. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agar Malwa, formulated, inter alia, the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicle, under the relevant provisions of the 2004 Act, the Court interpreted various provisions of the Act to hold that, unless the criminal offence is committed, seizure of the vehicle which was involved in the incident, would be unwarranted. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh refers to various judgments to contend that proceedings towards confiscation of the offending vehicle and also criminal prosecution against the Accused are parallely maintainable. The State's counsel then refers to Section 13A of the 2004 Act to point out that the burden of proof is on the Accused when he is being prosecuted under the Act. He further refers to the evidence of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Arvind Mahajan (PW-4) who examined the animals to contend that there is adequate justification for confiscation of the truck, on the basis of the evidence of PW-4. 10. The High Court upheld the order of confiscation by the District Magistrate 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate under the Code of Criminal Procedure were taken away. The relevant passage in the relied upon judgment reads as under: 29.3. Section 52-C stipulates that on the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate Under Sub-section (4) of Section 52, no court, tribunal or authority, other than an authorised officer, an appellate authority or Court of Session (Under Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have been initiated. Sub-section (1) of Section 52-C has a non obstante provision which operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Forest Act, 1927 or in any other law for the time being in force. The only saving is in respect of an officer duly empowered by the State Government for directing the immediate release of a property seized Under Section 52, as provided in Section 61. Hence, upon the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate of the initiation of confiscation proceedings Under Sub-section (4)(a) of Section 52, the bar of jurisdiction Under Sub-section (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted 29.4. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court in our opinion was competent to entertain the petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. We find support for the above view, from the ratio in the State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao 2008 (14) SCC 624, wherein this Court while adverting to the provisions of another legislation i.e. the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 opined that the power of the Magistrate to order interim release of confiscated vehicle Under Section 451 Code of Criminal Procedure, is not affected. The Court reasoned that withdrawal of the power of interim release conferred on the Authorities Under Section 50(2), cannot be construed to mean a bar on the powers of the Magistrate Under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was next noted that a clear intention to the contrary can be found in the Act in Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efully refer to this Court's opinion in State of W.B. v. Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129. 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. The relevant passage is reproduced below: 26. An order of confiscation of forest produce in a proceeding Under Section 59-A of the Act would not amount either to penalty or punishment. Such an order, however, can be passed only in the event a valid seizure is made and the authorized officer satisfies himself as regards ownership of the forest produce in the State as also commission of a forest offence. An order of confiscation is not to be passed automatically, and in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 59-A a discretionary power has been conferred upon the authorized officer in relation to a vehicle. Apart from the ingredi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
