LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a vehicle can be confiscated under the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, after the accused persons have been acquitted in the related criminal case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Cow Slaughter Prohibition
Case Name: Abdul Vahab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
[Judgment Date]: 04 March 2022
Date of the Judgment: 04 March 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 176
Judges: Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Can a vehicle be confiscated for allegedly transporting cow progeny for slaughter, even after the individuals accused of the crime are acquitted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case originating from Madhya Pradesh. The core issue revolved around whether confiscation proceedings under the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, can continue independently of criminal proceedings, especially when the accused are acquitted. This judgment clarifies the relationship between criminal trials and confiscation orders, emphasizing the need for a fair and just application of the law.
The bench was composed of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, with the judgment authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Case Background
The case began when the appellant’s truck, carrying 17 cow progeny, was intercepted. The driver, Surendra, and another person, Nazir, were arrested. Subsequently, a case was registered at Police Station Kannad, District Agar Malwa, for offenses under Sections 4 and 9 of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, along with Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The truck was seized, and the owner, Abdul Vahab, was also charged. The prosecution alleged that the animals were being transported for slaughter.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| [Date not specified in document] | Appellant’s truck intercepted with 17 cow progeny. |
| [Date not specified in document] | Driver and another person arrested; case registered. |
| [Date not specified in document] | Truck seized and owner charged. |
| 28.11.2016 | Trial Court acquits all accused, finding no evidence of intended slaughter. |
| 09.08.2017 | District Magistrate orders confiscation of the truck. |
| 22.09.2018 | Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, affirms the confiscation order. |
| [Date not specified in document] | Revision Petition dismissed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. |
| [Date not specified in document] | High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirms confiscation order. |
| 04.03.2022 | Supreme Court sets aside confiscation order. |
Course of Proceedings
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agar Malwa, acquitted all the accused, including the truck owner, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the primary charge that the cow progeny were being transported for slaughter. Despite this acquittal, the District Magistrate ordered the confiscation of the appellant’s truck, citing a violation of Section 6 of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004. This order was upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, and the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh also affirmed the confiscation order, stating that confiscation proceedings could continue independently of criminal proceedings.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, and the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012. The relevant sections are:
- ✓ Section 4 of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004: Deals with the prohibition of cow slaughter.
- ✓ Section 6 of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004: Concerns the prohibition on the transport of cow progeny for slaughter.
- ✓ Section 9 of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004: Provides for penalties for violations of the Act.
- ✓ Section 11(5) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004: Grants the power to confiscate vehicles used in the commission of offenses under the Act.
- ✓ Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: Relates to the treatment of animals.
- ✓ Section 13A of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004: Pertains to the burden of proof in prosecutions under the Act.
- ✓ Rule 5 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012: Empowers the police to seize vehicles used in violation of the Act.
The Supreme Court also considered the interplay between these provisions and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly with respect to the powers of the Magistrate and the High Court.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The appellant argued that the confiscation of the truck was unjustified since all the accused were acquitted in the related criminal proceedings.
- ✓ The appellant relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Nitesh s/o Dhannalal vs. State of M.P., which held that the seizure of a vehicle under the 2004 Act is unwarranted unless a criminal offense is proven.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- ✓ The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that confiscation proceedings and criminal prosecutions are parallelly maintainable.
- ✓ The State relied on Section 13A of the 2004 Act, which places the burden of proof on the accused.
- ✓ The State referred to the evidence of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (PW-4) to justify the confiscation.
The State argued that the confiscation proceedings are independent of the criminal proceedings and that the acquittal of the accused does not invalidate the confiscation order. The State also contended that the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove their innocence, and the evidence of the veterinary doctor justified the confiscation.
The appellant argued that since the trial court had acquitted the accused and specifically held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the cow progeny was being transported for the purpose of slaughter, the confiscation of the truck was not justified. The appellant contended that the confiscation order was passed despite the trial court’s acquittal order.
The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that the confiscation order was unjustified when the criminal proceedings had culminated in an acquittal.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Justification for Confiscation | Confiscation is unjustified after acquittal in criminal proceedings. | Confiscation proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings. |
| Burden of Proof | N/A | Section 13A of the 2004 Act places the burden of proof on the accused. |
| Evidence | Trial Court found no evidence of intended slaughter. | Veterinary Assistant Surgeon’s evidence justifies confiscation. |
| Precedents | Relied on Nitesh s/o Dhannalal vs. State of M.P. | Relied on cases under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the confiscation of the appellant’s truck under Section 11(5) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, was justified, given the acquittal of the accused in the related criminal case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether confiscation is justified after acquittal? | Confiscation order set aside. | The Court held that the confiscation order was not justified when the accused were acquitted in the criminal case, as there was no evidence of intended slaughter. The court also emphasized that the 2004 Act does not have a non-obstante clause like the Forest Act, and therefore, the CrPC provisions apply. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nitesh s/o Dhannalal vs. State of M.P. | Madhya Pradesh High Court | Interpretation of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 | Cited by the appellant to argue that seizure of vehicle is unwarranted unless criminal offense is committed. |
| State of MP. Vs Smt. KalloBai [2017 14 SCC 502] | Supreme Court of India | Confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 | Distinguished, as the Forest Act contains a non-obstante clause, which is absent in the 2004 Act. |
| State of M.P Vs. Uday Singh [2020 12 SCC 733] | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in confiscation proceedings | Distinguished, as it pertained to the Forest Act, which has a non-obstante clause. |
| State of M.P Vs. Madhukar Rao [2008 (14) SCC 624] | Supreme Court of India | Power of Magistrate to order interim release of confiscated vehicle | Cited to support the view that the power of the Magistrate to order interim release of a confiscated vehicle under Section 451 CrPC is not affected by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. |
| Madhukar Rao v. State of MP [(2000) 1 MP LJ 289 (FB)] | Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench) | Constitutional validity of absolute vesting of seized property | Affirmed by State of M.P Vs. Madhukar Rao, highlighting that deprivation of property without proof of guilt is unconstitutional. |
| State of W.B vs. Sujit Kumar Rana [(2004) 4 SCC 129] | Supreme Court of India | Need to establish commission of an offense for confiscation | Cited to emphasize that confiscation should not be automatic and requires proof of an offense. |
| Section 11(4) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 | M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 | Application of CrPC in search and seizure | Cited to show that CrPC provisions apply to the 2004 Act. |
| Section 11 A(4) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 | M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 | Power of Appellate Authority to release vehicle at interim stage | Cited to show that the Appellate Authority has the power to release the vehicle at the interim stage. |
| Rules 5 and 6 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 | M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 | Power of police to seize vehicle | Cited to show that the police can seize vehicles as per Section 100 of the CrPC. |
| Section 52-C(1) of the Forest Act, 1927 (as amended by M.P. Act 25 of 1983) | Forest Act, 1927 | Non-obstante clause barring jurisdiction of criminal courts | Distinguished, as the 2004 Act does not have a similar clause. |
| Section 15-C of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyaapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969 | Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyaapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969 | Jurisdictional bar on Courts and Tribunals | Distinguished, as the 2004 Act does not have a similar clause. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that confiscation is unjustified after acquittal. | Accepted. The Court held that the confiscation order was not justified when the accused were acquitted in the criminal case. |
| State’s argument that confiscation proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings. | Partially accepted. The Court acknowledged that both proceedings can run simultaneously but emphasized that the acquittal in the criminal case should be considered in the confiscation proceedings. |
| State’s reliance on Section 13A of the 2004 Act to shift the burden of proof. | Rejected. The Court clarified that Section 13A applies to criminal prosecution and not confiscation proceedings. |
| State’s reliance on the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon’s evidence. | Not considered sufficient to justify confiscation after acquittal. The Court noted that the trial court had already rejected the prosecution’s claim of intended slaughter. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ Nitesh s/o Dhannalal vs. State of M.P. – The Court agreed with the principle that seizure of a vehicle is unwarranted without proof of a criminal offense.
- ✓ State of MP. Vs Smt. KalloBai [2017 14 SCC 502] – The Court distinguished this case, noting that the Indian Forest Act, 1927, has a non-obstante clause, which is absent in the 2004 Act.
- ✓ State of M.P Vs. Uday Singh [2020 12 SCC 733] – The Court distinguished this case as well, as it also pertained to the Forest Act with a non-obstante clause.
- ✓ State of M.P Vs. Madhukar Rao [2008 (14) SCC 624] – The Court relied on this case to support the view that the Magistrate’s power to order interim release of a confiscated vehicle is not affected by other Acts.
- ✓ Madhukar Rao v. State of MP [(2000) 1 MP LJ 289 (FB)] – The Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that deprivation of property without proof of guilt is unconstitutional.
- ✓ State of W.B vs. Sujit Kumar Rana [2004 4 SCC 129] – The Court cited this case to highlight that confiscation should not be automatic and requires proof of an offense.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- ✓ The acquittal of the accused in the criminal trial, which indicated a lack of evidence of intended slaughter.
- ✓ The absence of a non-obstante clause in the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, unlike the Forest Act, which meant that the provisions of the CrPC were applicable.
- ✓ The need to protect the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution, which requires that deprivation of property be authorized by law.
- ✓ The principle that confiscation should not be automatic and requires proof of an offense.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of Criminal Acquittal | 30% |
| Absence of Non-Obstante Clause | 25% |
| Protection of Property Rights | 25% |
| Need for Proof of Offense | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court rejected the argument that confiscation proceedings are entirely independent of criminal proceedings, especially when the criminal proceedings end in acquittal. The Court emphasized that the absence of a non-obstante clause in the 2004 Act, unlike the Forest Act, meant that the provisions of the CrPC were applicable. The Court also highlighted the importance of protecting property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that confiscation should not be automatic and requires proof of an offense. The Court noted that the trial court had already rejected the prosecution’s claim of intended slaughter, and therefore, the confiscation of the truck was not justified.
The court rejected the interpretation that the burden of proof shifts to the truck owner in confiscation proceedings. The court clarified that Section 13A of the 2004 Act applies to criminal prosecution and not confiscation proceedings.
The Supreme Court set aside the confiscation order, stating:
“The confiscation of the appellant’s truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A.”
The Court also observed:
“The District Magistrate has the power to independently adjudicate cases of violations under Sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B of the 2004 Act and pass order of confiscation in case of violation. But in a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the Criminal Prosecution, the judgment given in the Criminal Trial should be factored in by the District Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding.”
The Court further stated:
“By reason of an order of confiscation, a person is deprived of the enjoyment of his property. Article 300A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from this judgment are:
- ✓ Confiscation of a vehicle under the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, is not automatic and requires proof of an offense.
- ✓ Acquittal in a related criminal case should be a significant factor in deciding confiscation proceedings.
- ✓ The burden of proof in confiscation proceedings does not shift to the vehicle owner.
- ✓ The provisions of the CrPC apply to confiscation proceedings under the 2004 Act, as it does not have a non-obstante clause.
- ✓ Confiscation orders that ignore the acquittal in the criminal case are arbitrary and violate Article 300A of the Constitution.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the confiscation order of the District Magistrate be set aside and the High Court’s decision to the contrary was also set aside.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a confiscation order under the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, cannot be sustained when the accused has been acquitted in the related criminal case, as it violates Article 300A of the Constitution. This decision clarifies that confiscation proceedings are not entirely independent of criminal proceedings and that the acquittal in the criminal case must be considered. This judgment also clarifies that the burden of proof does not shift to the vehicle owner in confiscation proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Abdul Vahab vs. State of Madhya Pradesh sets aside the confiscation order of the appellant’s truck, emphasizing that confiscation cannot be automatic and must be based on proof of an offense. The Court held that the acquittal of the accused in the criminal proceedings must be factored into the confiscation proceedings, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable. This judgment reinforces the protection of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution and provides clarity on the relationship between criminal trials and confiscation orders.