Confiscation proceedings can continue parallel to criminal proceedings, but a final order can only be passed after the conclusion of the trial, and a court of competent jurisdiction must find the accusations true before confiscation can occur.

Alok Verma, J.

This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No.436/2015 dated 28.08.2015.

2. The relevant facts for disposal of this case are that the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-43-G- 0842 belonging to the present applicant was intercepted and searched and it was found that 9 cow progeny were being transported in the vehicle. Present applicant was arrested from the spot as owner and driver of the vehicle and co-accused Sheikh Abdul S/o Sheikh Ahmad was arrested being owner of the cow progeny. Crime No.69/2012 at Police Station-Dhangaon, District-Khandwa was registered under section 4, 6, 9 of Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and section 11 (c) of Cruelty against Animals Act was registered. The charge-sheet was filed before the concerning Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa. The vehicle was handed over to the present applicant on supurdaginama by this Court in MCRC No.8764/2012 vide order dated 09.08.2012. The concerning District Magistrate initiated proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle while criminal case was pending before the JMFC, Khandwa. It is alleged that without affording any opportunity of cross examining the prosecution witness, the concerning District Magistrate passed an order of confiscation against which present applicant went in appeal before the Commissioner, Indore which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2015 against which, revision was filed in the Sessions Court, which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order. The revision was also dismissed.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, present application is filed placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Raees v. State of MP reported in 2013 (5) MPHT 233 : 2014 (4) FLT 107 (MP) in which it was held that while the confiscation proceeding was going on, the vehicle may be handed over on interim custody under section 451 of Cr.P.C.

4. However, in this case, the vehicle is already ordered to be confiscated by the two courts below and also revision filed before the Sessions Court has been dismissed by the impugned order.

5. Similar matter came for consideration before this Court in MCRC No.593/2015. While disposing of the application by order dated 24.08.2015, the Court framed following questions:-

(i) whether, under MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and Rules made there under known as MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 confiscation proceeding can continue parallel to the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate; and

(ii) whether, an order, ordering confiscation of the vehicle and cow progeny can only be passed after conclusion of trial before the Judicial Magistrate in which it was held that offence under the Act was committed and the vehicle was used for transporting cow progeny for slaughtering.

6. This Court took into consideration the relevant provision of MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and Rules framed thereunder and also relevant provisions of the Forest Act. Taking into consideration all the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, this Court observed in para 7 to 14 in the aforesaid order as under:-

"7. The provisions of Indian Forest Act and the amendment incorporated therein was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramniwas v. Game Range Chambal Santuary, Bhind, Headquarter, Ambah, District-Morena reported in 2012 (2) MPLJ 661.

8. The Court compared analogous provisions in Bengal Amendment Act, 1927 and observed by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Sujeet Kumar Rana 2004 (4) SCC 159 in para 17 reads as under:-

17. The principles which can be culled out from the provisions of the 1927 Act and the judgment in Sujeet Kumar Rana's case (supra) are as under:-

(i) Forest Act is a Special Act;

(ii) M.P. Amendments provide a complete Code in its