Rajasthan High Court: In petitions seeking quashment of the District Collector’s orders regarding the confiscation and refusal to release petitioners’ vehicles, allegedly used for transporting bovine animals without permits thereby committing offenses under the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (RBA Act), a single-judge bench of Sudesh Bansal, J., upheld the District Collector’s orders, refrained from intervening in the orders of the District Collector as District Collector acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, not as a criminal court and denied the petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash the confiscation orders and release vehicles on interim custody.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioners’ vehicles were seized by the police during the registration of FIRs for alleged offenses under the RBA Act. The District Collectors exercised their power under Section 6-A of the RBA Act, ordered the confiscation of the vehicles because the same was allegedly used for transporting bovine animals without permits and offered an option to the owners to pay fines in lieu of confiscation. The petitioners filed a petition challenging the orders passed by the concerned District Collectors under Section 6-A of the RBA Act and sought the release of their vehicles on Supurdgi (interim custody).
Moot Point
-
Whether the District Collector acted within his statutory powers under RBA Act to order confiscation or impose fines in lieu of confiscation of vehicle?
-
Whether the RBA Act provides any statutory remedy of appeal or revision against the orders passed by the District Collector under Section 6-A of the RBA Act?
-
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to interfere with the orders of the District Collector?
-
Whether the District Collector acts as a criminal court under Section 6-A of the RBA Act?
-
Whether confiscation proceedings should await the outcome of the criminal trial?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners contended that there is no explicit statutory provision under the RBA Act which provides an appeal or revision against orders passed under Section 6-A of the Act. It was contended that when compared to other provisions of the RBA Act and similar statutes, there exist no finality or appeal provisions for Section 6-A, thereby compelling the petitioners to seek High Court intervention.
However, the Amicus Curiae argued that the absence of explicit appeal provisions in Section 6-A does not imply finality of orders by the District Collector. The Amicus Curiae suggested to apply the ‘doctrine of implied power’ or purposive interpretation to allow appeals against Section 6-A orders, similar to provisions under Section 7(3) of the RBA Act and other similar statutes.
Law Point
-
Section 6-A of RBA Act allows for the seizure and confiscation of means of conveyance used in the commission of offenses under the RBA Act. The Competent Authority (District Collector) has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.
-
Section 7 of RBA Act governs the custody and disposal of bovine animals seized under the RBA Act, 1995.
-
Section 12 and 12-A of RBA Act empower the Competent Authority to inspect, arrest, and seize in connection with offenses under the Act.
-
Section 4(2) of the CrPC allows for offenses under the RBA Act, 1995 to be treated as cognizable and for police officers to register FIRs and seize vehicles and animals involved.
Court’s Analysis
District Collector’s Power under Section 6-A
The Court noted that Section 6-A vests exclusive power in the District Collector to pass orders regarding the possession, delivery, disposal, release, or confiscation of vehicles used in offenses under the RBA Act, thereby excluding jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or other authority. The Court stated that though the police officers are authorised to seize vehicles and bovine animals used in the commission of offences under the RBA Act, but the subsequent handling of these seized items falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Competent Authority.
The Court asserted that the RBA Act as a special law, overrides general provisions of the CrPC due to Section 5 of the CrPC and the principle of ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’, i.e., special law prevails over general law. The Court stated that though the RBA Act does not specify the nature of offenses or procedural details, the general provisions of the CrPC apply for investigation and trial.
The Court opined that the present petitions challenged the impugned orders and sought the release of vehicles on Supurdgi, but the statutory framework supports the actions of the Collectors under the RBA Act. The Court held that the petitioners’ vehicles were seized in connection with offenses under the RBA Act, and the competent authorities acted within their statutory powers to order confiscation or impose fines in lieu of confiscation.
Remedy of Appeal/Revision for Section 6-A
The Court reviewed the provisions of the RBA Act, other related statutes, like Rajasthan Excise Act, Essential Commodities Act, Rajasthan Forest Act, etc. and relevant judicial precedents and compared statutory frameworks where appeals and revisions are explicitly provided against confiscation orders. The Court also discussed the applicability of the ‘doctrine of implied power’ to imply the existence of appellate remedies even if not explicitly mentioned in the statute is consistent with the broader legislative framework and intent. The Court referred to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 10864, to support application of doctrine of implied power.
The Court observed that the RBA Act was modeled on the Rajasthan Excise Act and other similar statutes and likely did not intend to leave aggrieved persons without recourse. The Court analysed the legislative intent and stated that there is need for harmonious construction of statutory provisions to avoid denial of justice. The Court stated that the absence of explicit appeal provisions in Section 6-A might be a legislative oversight rather than a deliberate exclusion. The Court held that the absence of explicit appellate provisions does not preclude the availability of such a remedy. The Court asserted that an appeal against the District Collector’s orders under Section 6-A is permissible, aligning with the broader statutory framework and legislative intent.
High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
The Court opined that while the RBA Act does not expressly provide for an appeal against orders of confiscation under Section 6-A, such a remedy should be implied to ensure legislative consistency and fairness, therefore, the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be invoked in the absence of explicit appellate provisions to address grievances against the confiscation orders.
The Court noted that in the present case the District Collector acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, not as a criminal court. The Court held that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not extend to interfering with orders of the District Collector acting under Section 6-A of the RBA Act. The Court refrained from interfering with the orders of the District Collectors. However, the Court stated that the aggrieved persons can invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction for judicial review of such orders, as per State of W.B. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129 and State of M.P. v. Uday Singh, (2020) 12 SCC 733.
Independence of Confiscation Proceedings
The Court cited State of M.P. v. Kallo Bai, (2017) 14 SCC 502 and Abdul Vahab v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 310, to establish that confiscation proceedings are separate from criminal proceedings and can proceed independently. The Court held that the confiscation proceedings are independent of criminal prosecution and do not need to await the outcome of the trial.
The Court further noted that if the police seize a vehicle while registering an FIR under the RBA Act, the confiscation proceedings by the District Collector are ancillary to the criminal case. The Court stated that the Competent Authority, District Collector, must be satisfied that the vehicle was used in committing an offense before final confiscation, but interim custody can be granted on appropriate terms.
Alternative Statutory Remedy
The Court stated that since there is no statutory remedy of appeal or revision against the orders of the District Collector under Section 6-A of the RBA Act, the Government of Rajasthan is recommended to consider providing such a remedy, similar to provisions in other statutes like the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to send a copy of this judgment to the Principal Law Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, to circulate it to all District Collectors and inform the government about the recommendations for providing an appeal or revision mechanism against orders passed under Section 6-A.
Court’s Decision
The Court upheld the confiscation proceedings by the District Collector under the RBA Act as distinct and independent from the criminal proceedings. The Court refrained from intervening in the orders of the District Collector and denied the petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash the confiscation orders and release vehicles on interim custody,
[Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 1766, order dated 01-07-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Sudesh Bansal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka, Mr. Anant Sharma, Ms. Sunita Meena, Mr. Ankit Khandelwal and Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP, Counsel for the Respondent
Mr. Anurag Sharma, Mr. S.S. Hora, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Mr. Sudhir Jain and Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Counsel for the Amicus Curiae
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
