–By Abhinav Shrivastava & Nirmal Prasad
INTRODUCTION:
The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the acquittal of an accused person must be a factor to be considered in the parallel confiscation proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).[1]
ANALYSIS:
Briefly put, accused persons were caught transporting 17 cow progeny in a truck. This led to an FIR being registered them under Sections 4 and 9 of the Act read with Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Consequently, confiscation proceedings were also initiated against the accused persons.
In 2016, all accused were acquitted from criminal proceedings. However, in 2017, the District Magistrate passed an order of confiscation of the accused person’s truck even after the acquittal of all accused persons was brought to his notice. In the subsequent appellate and revisional proceedings, the order of the District Magistrate was upheld, citing confiscation proceedings as being separate from the criminal proceedings.
The accused approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”, challenging the confiscation order. The High Court refused the to grant relief to the accused, stating that it did not have the jurisdiction under CrPC to quash confiscation proceedings. Thus, the accused challenged the order of the High Court, raising the question of whether confiscation proceedings could be maintained even after acquittal from criminal proceedings.
The High Court relied heavily upon precedent relating to the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyaapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969, such as State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai[2] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh[3] wherein similar provisions for parallel proceedings were present. The Supreme Court noted that in the previously mentioned legislation, there was a jurisdictional bar on criminal courts in confiscation proceedings. Additionally, the legislation provided for the procedure for search and seizure, read with provisions having non-obstante clauses, giving overriding effect to the legislation. The consequence of such provisions meant that search and seizure powers were exclusively vested with the authorized officers under the legislation.
The Supreme Court then went on to differentiate the Act from the previously mentioned legislation was not pari materia to the Act, as it did not contain any provisions with non-obstante clauses giving offering effect or any provisions expressly creating a bar on jurisdiction of criminal courts. Section 11(4) of the Act applied provisions of CrPC relating to search and seizure. As CrPC was applicable and no express provisions were present barring jurisdiction, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had the power to quash confiscation proceedings under the Act. To justify this, reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madhukar Rao.[4] The Supreme Court in this case had stated that the Magistrate’s power under Section 451 of CrPC is not affected or barred due to the withdrawal of power of interim release conferred on Authorities under the Act.
Before concluding, the Supreme Court also cited that State of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana,[5] to emphasize the need to maintain balance between statutes created in public interest and consequential proceedings that deprive a person of their property. The commission of an offence is an important factor to pass an order for confiscation, therefore, such an order should not be passed in an automatic manner. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded by stating that when the appellant’s truck was confiscated on account of criminal proceedings, the vehicle could not be withheld when all accused persons have been acquitted. An order to the contrary would amount to arbitrarily depriving the appellant of his property.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court has succinctly laid down that while criminal and confiscation proceedings are separate, they must run simultaneously and an acquittal in criminal proceedings must be considered as a factor when considering confiscation. Especially when confiscation proceedings are initiated on the basis of criminal proceedings, an acquittal would ordinarily entail confiscation proceedings to lapse as well.
Even more importantly, the Supreme Court has noted that express provisions must be present in legislation in order to bar the jurisdiction of criminal courts. Such an inference cannot be drawn unless the provisions specifically bar jurisdiction.
[1] Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2022.
[2] (2017) 14 SCC 502.
[3] (2020) 12 SCC 733.
[4] 2008 (14) SCC 624.
[5] (2004) 4 SCC 129.
Abhinav Shrivastava is Co-Founding Partner of GSL Chambers. Nirmal Prasad is an Associate at GSL Chambers.
