Sakunjay Vyas
Published on March 6, 2022 at 17:59 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy of Supreme Court overturned Madhya Pradesh High Court bench order that ordered a vehicle’s confiscation, even when an order of acquittal was passed by the subordinate Court.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that Confiscating vehicle of accused who has been acquitted in Criminal Prosecution is a Violation of Article 300A of Constitution of India.
The Two Judge Bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy were hearing an appeal against Madhya Pradesh High Court bench in the case where a vehicle was intercepted with 17 cow progeny, the driver of the vehicle and others present in the vehicle were detained.
The Court ordered vehicle’s confiscation, even after acquittal of the accused persons from the criminal case filed against them for the same event.
The Apex Court found out that the High Court while deciding the present case 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 when an order of acquittal of the accused persons from the criminal case filed for the same course of events was present.
The High Court further stated that in the present case they don’t have jurisdiction under section 482, CrPC, since the case filed under certain act and should be dealt accordingly.
The learned counsel for the appellant, made his submissions, he contended that confiscation of the vehicle is wholly unjustified when all four accused were acquitted of the criminal charges in the related proceedings.
To which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that proceedings towards confiscation of the offending vehicle and also Criminal Prosecution against the accused are parallelly maintainable and also referred to various prior judgment supporting the subject matter.
The Apex Court had a contrary opinion. They stated that the cases mentioned and relied upon by the subordinate courts are not pari materia to the case in hand and the High Court in our opinion was competent to entertain the petition under Section 482, CrPC.
And that in cases where accused have been acquitted, the judgment of acquittal should be a factor while deciding the confiscation matter for the same.
“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 said.
Further the Apex court stated the view that the provisions of other acts cannot bar the powers vested in the magistrate and that the seizure of things or detention of any person shall be dealt with according to the law well fit to the circumstances of the case in hand and not according to the provisions of any other act not so related to the case.
And that an order for confiscation of vehicle of an accused who has been acquitted is arbitrary and is in Violation of 300A.
“It was next noted that a clear intention to the contrary can be found in the Act in Section 50(4) under which, any person detained, or things seized shall be taken before a Magistrate to be dealt with according to law (and not according to the provisions of the Act)…. 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 said.
As a result, the Apex Court overturned Madhya Pradesh High Court bench order that ordered vehicle’s confiscation, even after acquittal of the accused persons from the criminal case and also stated that order of confiscation in cases where an order of acquittal have been granted to the accused is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements.
Also Read: PIL in SC seeks confiscation of Benami properties to curb corruption