Brief Facts
- The present criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the orders passed by the District Collector under Section 6-A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995, whereby the vehicles seized in connection with offences under the said Act were confiscated and release thereof was declined.
- The petitioners contended that the confiscation proceedings were illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction; that no opportunity of hearing was properly afforded; that the criminal cases arising out of the same seizure were pending before the competent criminal courts.
- The State opposed the petitions contending that the proceedings under Section 6-A are independent, quasi-judicial in nature; that jurisdiction of criminal courts is expressly barred; and that petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable.
Issues
- Whether proceedings under Section 6-A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act are criminal in nature or quasi-judicial?
- Whether the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with orders of confiscation passed by the District Collector under Section 6-A?
- Whether confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A can continue independent of the criminal trial arising out of the same seizure?
Held
- The Court examined the scheme of Section 6-A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act, the bar of jurisdiction contained therein, and the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana [(2004) 4 SCC 129], State of M.P. v. Uday Singh (2020) 12SCC 733, Abdul Vahab v. State of M.P. [(2022) 13 SCC310], and other precedents governing confiscation statutes, the Court held that confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act, 1995 are quasi-judicial in nature and distinct from criminal proceedings. The District Collector, acting as the Competent Authority, exercises quasi-judicial powers independent of the criminal trial arising from the same offence. While conducting confiscation proceedings, the Authority must act with caution and circumspection and take into account the outcome of the criminal case, as held by the Supreme Court in Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 13 SCC 310. The findings of the Court are as under:
- The Court further held that the Competent Authority is empowered to pass appropriate interim orders regarding custody or release of the seized vehicle in accordance with settled judicial precedents, keeping in mind that prolonged detention of vehicles causes avoidable loss to both the owner and the State exchequer. It was clarified that orders passed by the District Collector under Section 6-A are not amenable to interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the Authority does not act as a criminal court; however, such orders may be challenged by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court also made recommendations to the State Government regarding the need to provide a statutory appellate or revisional remedy against orders passed under Section 6-A of the Act.
Relevant Para No.
- Para 18 to 25