ABDUL VAHAB versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 04-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 311
311
ABDUL VAHAB
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2022)
MARCH 04, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
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]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
2. By reason of an order of confiscation, a person

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.