1. This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by 9th A.S.J., Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 269/2015 upholding the order dated 23.6.2015 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jabalpur in Appeal No. 178/B-121/14-15 thereby affirming the order dated 27.8.2014 passed by Collector, Jabalpur, by which the truck No. MP 09 HF 7723 was directed to be confiscated under rule 5 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the truck No. MP 09 HF 7723 was searched by the police on 7.3.2014 and it was found that the cattle were being transported illegally in a most cruel manner. Therefore, an offence under M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 was registered against Mohsin and Santosh who were arrested. It was also found that the truck was being plied in utter violation of the different provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, an offence under sections 5/180, 66/192 of Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the applicant.

3. Proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the truck No. MP 09 HF 7723 under rule 5 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 and a show cause notice was issued to the applicant, which was suitably replied by the applicant.

An application under section 451 of CrPC was filed before the Magistrate for release of the Truck on supurdaginama, which was allowed and the J.M.F.C., Narsingpur, directed for release of vehicle on supurdagi.

4. It is further submitted that in the summary proceedings for offence under sections 5/180 and 66/192 of Motor Vehicles Act, the applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-.

5. It is submitted that in the meanwhile the confiscation proceedings continued and the Collector, Jabalpur by order dated 27.8.2014, directed for confiscation of the truck No. MP 09 HF 7723. Being aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Jabalpur, the applicant filed an Appeal, which too was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur by order dated 23.6.2015. The orders passed by the authorities were challenged by the applicant by filing a Criminal Revision before the Revisional Court, which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the 9th A.S.J., Jabalpur in Cr.R. No. 269/2015.

6. Challenging the orders of confiscation as well as the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the revisional Court, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that since the applicant was not made an accused for an offence under M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004, therefore, the truck No. MP 09 HF 7723, belonging to the applicant cannot be confiscated, as the conviction of the applicant is a sine qua non for the confiscation of the truck. To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 624, and the judgment of this Court in the case of Raees v. State of M.P. reported in 2013 (5) MPHT 233.

7. Per contra, the application is opposed by the Counsel for the State. It is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the (Wakeel Khan v. State of M.P.) proceedings for confiscation are independent to the trial and are not based on the outcome of the Criminal Trial. Even if a person is not made an accused in a criminal case, then it does not mean that the vehicle involved in commission of offence cannot be confiscated. Even the conviction of the co-accused persons in a criminal trial is not a sine qua non of confiscation. It is further submitted that the judgments on which the applicant has placed reliance are distinguishable because they deal with a situation where the confiscation proceedings have not attained finality.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer and another v. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and others, repo