Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1581 - SC - Indian LawsConfiscation Order of Appellant's truck - exercise of powers Under Section 11(5) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and Rule 5 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 - High Court affirmed the orders passed by the forums below, while holding that no error has been committed by the District Magistrate in ordering the truck's confiscation, even after acquittal of the Accused persons from the criminal case - onus of proof (shifting burden) - HELD THAT:- 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. Therefore, to deprive any person of their property, it is necessary for the State, inter-alia, to establish that the property was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds of crime or the deprivation is warranted for public purpose or public interest. At this stage, reference made to this Court's opinion in State of W.B. v. Sujit Kumar Rana [2004 (1) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT]. Here it was emphasized on the need to maintain balance between statutes framed in public interest such as the Forest Act, 1927 (and the relevant insertions Under W.B. Act 22 of 1988) and the consequential proceedings, depriving a person of his property, arising therefrom. It was accordingly observed that "commission of an offence" is one of the requisite ingredients for passing an order of confiscation and an order of confiscation should not be passed automatically. Insofar as the submission of the State Counsel that the burden of proof is on the truck owner in the process of confiscation, it is observed that Section 13A of the 2004 Act, which shifts the burden of proof, is not applicable for the confiscation proceedings but for the process of prosecution. By virtue of Section 13A of the 2004 Act, the burden on the State authority to legally justify the confiscation order, cannot be shifted to the person facing the confiscation proceeding. The contention to the contrary of the State's counsel, is accordingly rejected. 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. Therefore, the circumstances here are compelling to conclude that the District Magistrate's order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements. The confiscation order of the District Magistrate cannot be sustained and it is declared so accordingly - Consequently, the High Court's decision to the contrary is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|