The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Collector can confiscate a vehicle only upon a competent Court finding a violation of specified sections. The court also emphasized the power of the criminal court to grant interim custody of the vehicle until the conclusion of the trial.

JUDGMENT

1. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'The Code'), against the order dated 12.09.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No. 9/20 by ASJ Sonsar District Chhindwada whereby order dated 25.01.2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 461/2019 by learned JMFC Sonsar was affirmed. Learned JMFC has dismissed applicant's application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for granting interim supurdginama of truck (six wheels) bearing registration No.MH-40-BG-8668 seized in Crime No. 273/2018 of P.S. Sonsar, District- Chhindwada on the ground that confiscation order of the vehicle has been passed by the Collector.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.2018 police Sonsar intercepted truck (red color six wheels) belonging to the present applicant at around 4:45 am at Baggu Bichhua railway crossing. Driver and others left the vehicle by parking it near Bichhua railway crossing. When search of the truck was taken, truck was found transporting cattle (cow progeny). Cattle of cow progeny were being transported in the truck in cruel manner, their legs, mouth and horn were found tied on the rope. Some of the cattle were dying. In search, total 21 gowansh (cow progeny) i.e. 8 calf, 7 cows and 6 she calf were found. Case was registered for commission of offence under Section 279 of IPC, Sections 4, 6, 9 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "2004 Act") Section 11(gha)(jha)(j)(cha) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short "the 1960 Act") Section 11 MP Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam and Sections 184, 187, 66/192 of Motor Vehicle Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonsar, District-Chhindwara and trial is not completed.

3. During the pendency of the trial, the applicant moved an application under Section 451/457 of the Code before learned JMFC for taking interim custody of the vehicle bearing registration No. MH-40-BG-8668, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2020 holding that cow progeny was being transported in the vehicle in a cruel manner and that vehicle is the subject matter of offence, confiscation proceeding is pending before the District Magistrate, therefore it is not justified to release the vehicle on supurdginama. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant had preferred the revision petition before additional Sessions Judge Sonsar, District Chhindwada who found that the District Magistrate has already passed the order of confiscation of the vehicle under question vide order dated 06.08.2019. Hence, disposed off the revision petition finding no illegality, incorrectness and impropriety in the order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashment of the impugned order passed by the Courts below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is the registered owner of the seized vehicle. The order passed by the Courts below are illegal, unjust, arbitrary and are against the settled principles of law. He further submitted that if vehicle remains in custody of the police for a long period same shall get rot to rust and applicant shall be deprived of his livelihood. Learned Courts below have not considered the fact that Collector has illegally passed the order of confiscation of the vehicle as trial is still pending before the learned JMFC. Therefore, Collector should have not passed the order of confiscation on 06.08.2019 before the conclusion of the trial by Criminal Court. It is further submitted that order of confiscation under M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act can be passed only if the criminal Court found the violation of Sections 4,5, 6 and 6-B of the 2004 Act have been committed by the accused. It is submitted that Collector should have refrained fr