Provide Remedy Of Appeal Against Order Of Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Bovine Animal Act: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court recommended that the State Legislature ought to open remedy of appeal to the aggrieved person against the order of confiscation of vehicle by the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (RBA Act).
The Jaipur Bench was dealing with a batch of four criminal miscellaneous petitions, challenging four different orders of the District Collector in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Section 6-A of RBA Act, relating to confiscation or release or refuse to release of the means of conveyance (vehicles) being seized by the police.
A Single Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal said, “Therefore, this Court deems it just and proper that in order to bring the provision of Section 6-A to its completeness, on the similar line of Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, the State Legislature ought to ponder over its attention to the issue to open remedy of appeal to the aggrieved person against the order of Competent Authority passed under Section 6-A, in the similar tune as available against the order of Competent Authority passed under Section 7(1) or (2), u/s. 7(3) of the RBA Act, 1995 and this Court finds it proper to make its recommendations to the Government of Rajasthan to consider the same and to proceed, to fill up the gap/ lacunae in this regard, or atleast to make clarification in this regard, if think it just and proper to do so, within its domain and as per its own wisdom.”
The Bench emphasised that a remedy of appeal or revision against the order passed by the Competent Authority i.e., the District Collector in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 6-A of RBA Act must be open and be provided to the aggrieved person.
Advocate Dushyant Singh Naruka represented the petitioners while Public Prosecutor S.S. Mahla represented the respondent State.
Facts of the Case -
The District Collector issued orders by which the means of conveyance/vehicles were seized by the police while registering respective FIRs for commission of an offence punishable under RBA Act on the ground that the vehicles were allegedly found to be used in the commission of an offence under the said Act. In all four petitions, the prayer of the petitioners was to release their respective vehicles on Supurdgi or on an interim custody and consequently to quash the orders of the District Collector. In the original RBA Act, there was no provision about seizure and confiscation of the “means of conveyance”, however, when such gap was brought to the notice of the State Legislature, it inserted Section 6-A in the Act by introducing the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) (Amendment) Act, 2018 to accomplish such aim and object.
The High Court in the above context of the case observed, “It may not be oversight that against the order of same Competent Authority i.e. the District Collector, passed under Section 7(1) or (2), remedy of appeal is already prescribed under Section 7(3) of the Act, before the Divisional Commissioner, as much as in the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 also, against the order of confiscation passed under Section 69(4), remedy of appeal is available u/s. 9-A. The provision of Section 6-A was inserted by the State legislature in RBA Act, 1995, on the similar lines of Section 69 of Rajasthan Excise Act, with an aim and object to enlarge scope of the Act, for seizure and confiscation of the means of conveyance as well, which was used in commission of offence under the RBA Act.”
The Court enunciated that whenever means of conveyance is seized by the Police, while registering an FIR in connection with commission of offence under the RBA Act, 1995, proceedings of confiscation of such means of conveyance, if commenced by the Competent Authority i.e., the concerned District Collector, shall be incidental and ancillary to the final conclusion of the criminal case, however, the position may differ in case, where the Competent Authority seizes the means of conveyance in exercise of its power and jurisdiction specified under the amended provision of Section 12-A of the RBA Act, 1995, and criminal case is registered later on or even may not be registered.
“Nevertheless, this Court holds that “commission of offence punishable under the RBA Act, 1995”, is one of the essential and requisite ingredient of Section 6-A and before passing a final order of confiscation of any means of conveyance so seized under the Act, the Confiscation Authority is required to record a finding and satisfaction to the effect that the seized means of conveyance was used in commission of such offence under the Act. Without recording satisfaction by the Confiscating Authority about use of seized conveyance in commission of offence, the order of confiscation may not be passed automatically, merely on account of seizure of the conveyance, on registering an FIR for commission of offence under the RBA Act, 1995”, it held.
Furthermore, the Court refrained itself from interfering with the impugned orders but observed that it is open for the petitioners to invoke power and jurisdiction of judicial review of the High Court and to file criminal writ petitions against the same, if so desire.
The Court finally reached to the conclusion in the following manner –
• The nature of confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of RBA Act, 1995, is quasi-judicial and not criminal proceedings, therefore, the Competent Authority i.e. the Collector of concerned District, while passing any order under Section 6-A, acts like a quasi-judicial authority and not as a criminal Court.
• The proceedings under Section 6-A are independent and distinct, which are separately maintainable before the Competent Authority i.e. the concerned District Collector, apart from the criminal proceedings, commenced against the wrongdoer for commission of offence(s) under the RBA Act, 1995 before the criminal Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The Competent Authority is expected to initiate and conclude the confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A, cautiously and with circumspection, keeping in mind the basic origin of seizure of the means of conveyance, and if means of conveyance was seized by the Police, while registering an FIR in connection with commission of offence(s) under the RBA Act, 1995 and a criminal trial of case arising out of such FIR, is pending before the criminal Court, the judgment given by the criminal court should be factored by the Confiscating Authority.
• As far as exercising jurisdiction by the Competent Authority to make an order with regard to possession, delivery and disposal or release of such means of conveyance on interim custody is concerned, the Authority may pass such orders in accordance with law duly guided by law of judicial precedents, settled in various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts in this regard, keeping in mind that detention of vehicle for a long period in the premises of Police Station does not serve any purpose and it will cause loss not only to the owner, but also cause loss on revenue to the State exchequer as well.
• Against the order passed by the District Collector being the Competent Authority under Section 2(g) of RBA Act, 1995, in exercise of its power and jurisdiction entrusted to him specifically under Section 6-A, the interference should not and cannot be made by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, since the Authority did not act like a criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• In respect of question of law about availability of any alternative statutory remedy of appeal or revision against the order passed by the Competent Authority i.e., the District Collector in exercise of its powers under Section 6-A of the RBA Act, 1995, the Court had expressed its own opinion and made recommendations to the State Government.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petitions and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to send a copy of the judgment to the Principal Law Secretary, Rajasthan Government who shall circulate the same to all the District Collectors of the State.
Cause Title- Rameshwar S/o Balchand v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:23633)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Dushyant Singh Naruka, Anant Sharma, Sunita Meena, Ankit Khandelwal, and Jiya Ur Rahman.
Amicus Curiae: Advocates Anurag Sharma, S.S. Hora, Pankaj Gupta, Sudhir Jain, and Rajneesh Gupta.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor S.S. Mahla