Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letter Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 351 of 2023 Anup Kumar Saria, son of late Prahlad Rai Saria, aged about 59 years, proprietor of Anup Automobiles Petrol Pump, Ratanpur, PO and PS Govindpur, District Dhanbad-828109, Jharkhand ...… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Deputy Commissioner, PO, PS and District Dhanbad …. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Banka, Advocate : Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, AC to GA-IV 06th February 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. I.A. No. 872 of 2024 An interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. We are satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant in this application and, therefore, the delay of 15 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. 3. I.A. No. 872 of 2024 is, accordingly, allowed. LPA No. 351 of 2023 4. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 3rd April 2023 passed in WP(C) No. 1210 of 2021. 5. Before the writ Court, a challenge was laid by the appellant to the confiscation order dated 15th February 2019 in Miscellaneous Case No. 02 of 2018 passed by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner at Dhanbad and the appellate order dated 7th May 2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019. 6. The writ Court referred to the provision under section 6-C(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Bihar Amendment) and did not accord its approval for the release of the confiscated tanker owned by the 2 LPA No. 351 of 2023 appellant and held that the prayer for release of tanker cannot be granted as the provisions under section 6-C(2) refer to release of the commodity confiscated and not the vehicle seized. The writ Court also referred to the decision in “Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh” (2022) 13 SCC 310 and held that the said decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as only the driver and helper were acquitted in the criminal case and not the appellant. 7. The writ Court in its order dated 3rd April 2023 passed in WP(C) No. 1210 of 2021 has held as under:
Legal Reasoning
“20. The facts and situation of the present case is completely different from the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the final form was submitted in favour of the petitioner primarily due to the reason that at the relevant point of time, the vehicle was leased by him to someone else for plying it. However, it has not been pleaded by the petitioner that the criminal case against other accused persons i.e., the driver, helper and the lessee has also ended in their acquittal and thus the proposition laid down in the case of Abdul Vahab (supra.) will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. 21. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere with a concurrent finding of fact in exercise of its extraordinary power of judicial review and/or superintendence under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India unless the authority, which passed the impugned order, did not have jurisdiction to render such finding or had acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding was patently perverse. None of such infirmities has been shown by the petitioner in the order of confiscation of the said tanker passed by the respondent no.2 as well as the appellate order passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad upholding the order of the respondent no. 2. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Case No. 02/2018 confiscating the tanker of the petitioner as well as the order dated 07.05.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2019 affirming the order of the respondent no.2.
Decision
23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 8. In “Abdul Vahab” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a vehicle cannot be withheld/detained and confiscated by the State authority if the original proceedings have culminated in acquittal. In “Abdul Vahab” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “22. It should be noted that the objective of the 2004 Act is punitive and deterrent in nature. Section 11 of the 2004 Act and Rule 5 of MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012, allows for seizure and confiscation of vehicle, in case of violation of sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 3 LPA No. 351 of 2023 6B. The confiscation proceeding, before the District Magistrate, is different from criminal prosecution. However, both may run simultaneously, to facilitate speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the means used for committing the offence. 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. 23. In the present case, the order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges. 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.” 9. The learned State counsel submits that the decision in “Abdul Vahab” shall be applied in a case where the judgment of acquittal is rendered during the confiscation proceedings. We are not able to accept this submission for the reason that the judgment of acquittal whether rendered before or after the conclusion of the confiscation proceedings shall have the same effect. In the present case, a tanker carrying 20,000 litres of blue kerosene oil was intercepted by the police and a crime was registered vide Chirkunda (Maithan) PS Case No. 252 of 2015 corresponding to GR Case No. 4941 of 2015 (TR No. 333 of 2023). In the said case, the appellant was not sent-up for trial and the driver and helper of the seized tanker were acquitted by a judgment dated 11th April 2023. According to the appellant, the tanker was given on lease to Mr. Krishna Singh who died during the trial. In these facts, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Banka, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to “Ram Sharan Sao v. State of Bihar” 1977 PLJR 343 to submit that the criminal case against the appellant must be deemed to have failed and closed and, therefore, the confiscation order dated 15th February 2019 has become unsustainable in law. In the case of “Ram Sharan Sao”, the Patna High Court held as 10. under: “For the purposes of the Code “acquitted” means an order setting free the accused of accusation after full-dress trial, where as “discharge” means setting free the accused of accusation without a full-dress trial. However, 4 LPA No. 351 of 2023 this distinction between the meaning of the two words as used in the code cannot be relevant for the purposes of construing the meaning of the term “acquitted” in Section 6C(2) of the Act. The expression “acquitted” in Section 6C(2) of the Act should be construed to be comprehensive enough to include any judicial order passed at any stage of the proceeding setting free the accused of the accusation. The word “acquitted” in section 6C(2) cannot be given a limited meaning as not to include order of discharge. When the Magistrate accept the final report, the order amounts to an order of judicial discharge of the accused from an accusation.” 11. Sub-section 5 of section 11 of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 provides that the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicle, cow, progeny and beef in case of violation of the provisions of sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B and the District Magistrate shall confiscate such vehicles, cow, progeny and beef in such manner as may be prescribed. Almost a similar provision is made under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for seizure and confiscation of foodgrains, edible oils and edible seeds. 12. Section 11(5) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 is extracted as under: “11. Power of entry, inspection, search and seizure.- ………………………………………………………………………… (5) In case of any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicle, cow progeny and beef, and the District Magistrate shall confiscate such vehicles, cow progeny and beef in such manner as may be prescribed.” 13. Sections 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is extracted as under: “6-A. Confiscation of foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils.— (1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to] the Collector of the district or the Presidency-town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order may order confiscation of— (a) the essential commodity so seized; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity: 5 LPA No. 351 of 2023 Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oilseeds seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section: Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. (2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may— (i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction: Provided that in case of foodgrains, the Collector may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price fixed by the Central Government or by the State Government, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such foodgrains to the public. (3) Where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall— (a) where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector, (b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 6-C so requires, or (c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized.” 14. This is not in dispute that a criminal prosecution was launched against the driver, helper and lessee of the vehicle but the appellant was not sent up for the trial. It is true that the nature of proceedings under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and in the criminal trial shall be different and the decision in the criminal case is not always binding in the civil proceeding but where the foundation of the civil proceeding is removed and no longer exists on account of a decision in the criminal case, the civil proceeding also must fail. We are of the opinion that the writ Court overlooked the binding decision in “Abdul Vahab” and failed to exercise a jurisdiction legally vested in it and wrongly refused to interfere with the 6 LPA No. 351 of 2023 confiscation order. Therefore, the writ Court’s order dated 03rd April 2023 passed in WP(C) No. 1210 of 2021 is set aside. 15. LPA No. 351 of 2023 is allowed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Tanuj