ABDUL VAHAB Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

CITATION	SLP (Crl.) No. 8964 OF 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO	340 OF 2022
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	4th March 2022
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Abdul Vahab
RESPONDENT	State of Madhya Pradesh
BENCH	K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy

INTRODUCTION

          In the case of Abdul Vahab Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh is an appeal case in which the appellant’s truck was confiscated for the cause of loading cow progenies in the truck. The original criminal as against the confiscation of the truck was quashed stating that the original argument that the progenies were transported for the purpose of to be slaughtered, were unable to be proved. The present case was whether the truck could be held confiscated after the accused were acquitted from the original case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant’s truck was loaded with 17 cow progenies was intercepted, and the driver and the other one accompanying was arrested.
2. A FIR was registered against them according to the Section 4 and 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. The persons were arrested and the vehicle was seized.
3. The decision of the Judicial Magistrate was to acquit the accused as the main contention that the cows were transported for the purpose of slaughter was unable to be proved and were acquitted of the charges made against Section 4 and of the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004.
4. The District Magistrate ordered for the confiscation of the truck. But the prosecution witnesses had not recorded anything in persistence to the accused in the slaughter of the cows and the veterinary doctor who examined the cows recorded that the cows were perfectly healthy.
5. The appellant raised an appeal under the Section 482 of CrPC in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh but it held that the criminal proceedings against the accused and the seizure of the vehicle are legally maintainable. They stated that quashing the order made under the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 is not available to the court according to Section 482 of CrPC. 
6. The appeal is by this case raised before the Supreme Court of India through the Special Leave Petition.

ISSUES RAISED

        Whether the truck used to be said for the commission of the offence could be held confiscated after the accused were acquitted from the original criminal proceedings?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

1. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the confiscation of the vehicle held to be used for the commission of the offence was unjustifiable after the accused were acquitted from the criminal proceedings.
2. The counsel upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nithesh s/o Dhannalal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 were interpreted by the court where that was held that unless the offence is committed, the seizure of the vehicle involved in the incident is unwarranted.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT 

1. The counsel for the State held that the criminal proceedings against the accused and the seizure of the vehicle are both parallelly and legally maintainable.
2. He further stated that according to Section 13A of the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 the burden of proof is on the accused but he was prosecuted in the original case.
3. He contended that the evidence by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon who examined the cows were sufficient for the confiscation of the truck.

PROVISIONS

1. Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950, it was provided that no person shall be deprived of his property by the authority of law and it is no longer a fundamental right and only a constitutional right.
2. Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 which prohibits the transport of cow progeny for slaughter.
3. Section 13A of the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 which rests the Burden of Proof on the person prosecuted for offence 

JUDGEMENT

        The Supreme Court held that the criminal and the confiscation proceedings are separate but they are simultaneous that is the confiscation proceedings must consider the decision on the criminal proceeding. Especially when the confiscation proceedings are the basis of criminal proceedings, the decision of the those has an effect on the confiscation proceedings too.

     The Supreme Court upheld that the confiscation order of the Judicial Magistrate was arbitrary and inconsistent and ordered it to be set aside. And, they held that the High Court was entitled for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction including Section 482 CrPC.

ANALYSIS

1. There was bar on the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts on the criminal case in confiscation proceedings. The search and seizure powers were exclusively vested with the respective authorized officers under the legislation.
2. The High Court had the power for quashing the confiscation proceedings according to the Section 11(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004.
3. There should be a balance between the statutes created in public interest and the consequential proceedings that deprive the person of their property.
4. In order to deprive any person of their property, it is necessary to prove that the property was illegally obtained, or part of the criminal proceedings, or the deprivation of the public interest.
5. As the accused for acquitted, the truck confiscated on account of the criminal proceedings could not be seized as it would be arbitrary.

CONCLUSION

        This case provided explanation over the matter such as whether the confiscation can be upheld on the acquittal of the accused on the corresponding criminal proceeding. It also provided that the High Court was entitled for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34693669/
2. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/03/21/confiscation-of-truck-loaded-with-cow-progeny-despite-acquittal-in-criminal-proceedings-amounts-to-arbitrary-deprivation-of-property/
3. https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/once-person-accused-carrying-cows-slaughter-acquitted-confiscated-vehicle-cannot-be

This Article is written by Magizhini M of The Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (SOEL), An Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.