ORDER

1. The applicant has filed this present petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'The Code'), against the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Criminal Revision No. 211/2018 whereby the order dated 22.9.2018 passed by Commissioner Ujjain, in Criminal Appeal No. 1190/Appeal/2017-2018 has been affirmed, by which the Commissioner maintained the order of confiscation of the vehicle No. MP 09 GF 2159 dated 9.8.2017 passed by the Collector Agar, Malwa in case No. 44/2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Eicher loading vehicle No. MP 09 GF 2159 belonging to the present applicant was intercepted and searched and it was found that 17 cow progeny were being transported in the vehicle. Driver of the vehicle Surendra and one another person Nazir who was sitting in the vehicle were arrested and crime No. 102/2013 was registered at Police Station Kannad, District Agar Malwa for offence under section 4, 9 of Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (for brevity 'Adhiniyam, 2004') read with section 11(D) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960'). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

3. After completion of the trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, acquitted the accused persons from the alleged offence even then the concerned District Magistrate passed the order of confiscation of the vehicle against which the present applicant has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Ujjain, and same was dismissed vide order dated 22.9.2018. The said order was challenged in the revision petition filed before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred this petition under section 482 of 'the Code' for quashment of the order by which the vehicle No. MP 09 GF 2159 has been directed to be confiscated.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Courts below have not considered the fact that at the time of the incident, the applicant was not present in the vehicle and there is no evidence that in connivance with the applicant cow progeny were being illegally transported in the vehicle. During trial, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the driver and other co-accused person, therefore, learned Judicial Magistrate has acquitted them from all the charges, thus, there is no evidence that at the time of the incident the vehicle was used for the purpose of illegal transportation of cow-progeny. Applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle, therefore he is entitled for the custody of the vehicle. Orders passed by the Courts below are contrary to the settled principles of law hence the petition be allowed and it may be directed that the custody of the vehicle be handed over to the applicant.

5. It is further submitted that the vehicle cannot be confiscated by Collector as the criminal case has already been decided by the Magistrate and the accused persons have been acquitted from the charges. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao and ors., reported in 2008(1) JLJ 427 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Premdas v. State of M.P., reported in 2013(1) MPJR SN 10 so also in the judgment dated 29.2.2016 passed by this Court in the case of Nitesh S/o Dhannalal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (M.Cr.C. No. 9363/2015).

6. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the impugned order passed by the Courts below by which the vehicle was directed to be confiscated.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. It is not disputed that the Collector Agar, Malwa has passed the order of confiscation of the seized vehicle on 9.8.2017 i.e. after the conclusion of