IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Confiscation of Truck – Vehicle cannot be withheld and then confiscated by State, when original proceedings have culminated into acquittal.
(2) Confiscation of appellant’s truck when he is acquitted in Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A of Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pulkit Tare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh.

2. Leave granted.

3. The primary challenge in this appeal is to the Confiscation Order dated 09.08.2017 for the appellant’s truck (bearing No. MP/09/GF/2159), passed by the District Magistrate, Agar Malwa, purporting to exercise powers under Section 11(5) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2004 Act’) 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 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in the Criminal Revision No. 211/2018. The Truck owner preferred a Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 following question for consideration as the trial Court:

“1. Whether on the above date, time and place of occurrence accused with motive of slaughter of 17 bulls or with knowledge that the bulls will be slaughtered, transported or aided in transportation or surrendered of the same for slaughter of the aforesaid bulls outside the territory of M.P. to Nasik?”

6. Under the judgment dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure P-1), on evaluation of evidence, the learned Judge concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the primary ingredient of the charge, that the cow progeny was being transported “for the purpose of its slaughter” and as such no offence was made out under the 2004 Act. Thus, the aforequoted question no. 1, as formulated by the Court, was specifically held to be not proved. All four accused were accordingly acquitted of charges under the 1960 Act and also the charges under Section 4 read with Section 9 of the 2004 Act. The appellant, who was additionally charged under different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, was also acquitted of those charges.

7. Subsequently, however, the District Magistrate on 09.08.2017 ordered confiscation of the appellant’s truck, for violation of section 6 of the 2004 Act despite being apprised of the acquittal of the accused persons by the Trial Court. In the acquittal order, it was pertinently recorded that the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer (IO) and the main witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 had not testified on involvement of the accused with the act of intended slaughtering of cattle. The veterinary doctor (PW-4) commented tellingly that the animals were healthy and fit for agricultural purpose. The Trial Court also observed that the prosecution’s case of proposed slaughter was not at all supported by the medical evidence on record.

8. Assailing the order of confiscation of the truck and the consequential rejection of the challenge to the District Magistrate’s order, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pulkit Tare makes his submissions. He contends that confiscation of the vehicle is wholly unjustified when all