Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act | High Court Asks Govt To Add Provision Of Appeal Against Confiscation Of Vehicle Illegally Transporting Cattle

Perusing orders passed by District Collector under Section 6A of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act for confiscation of conveyance used to transport bovine animals without permit, the Rajasthan High Court has called upon the State legislature to introduce a provision of appeal.

Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 aims to prohibit slaughter of cow and its progeny and to regulate temporary migration or export thereof from Rajasthan to other States.

Section 6A empowers Collector to pass orders for seizure and confiscation of the “means of conveyance” which is used in connection with commission of offence punishable under this Act. Section 7 relates to custody and disposal of bovine animal seized. Though a provision of appeal against orders passed under Section 7 is prescribed, the same is lacking with respect to orders passed under Section 6A.

This prompted the Court to hold that it was never the intention of the State legislature to render any finality to the order of the Competent Authority passed under Section 6-A and not to provide any remedy of appeal or revision thereagainst in the Act.

"In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Competent Authority, it means the District Collector, under Section 6-A of the RBA Act, 1995, should also be amenable to be challenged by way of appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, in similar manner of availability of remedy of appeal under Section 7(3) against the order of Collector i.e. the Competent Authority passed under Section 7(1) or (2) of the Act," observed a bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal.

It therefore recommended the Government to consider filling up the gap or make a clarification in this regard.

The development comes in a bunch of petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the order of District Collector under Section 6-A of the Act that affirmed the actions of the police of confiscating petitioners' vehicles on registration of an FIR against them for transporting bovine animals without permit.

The Court observed that since the Act do not specify the nature of offences and the procedure for investigation, offences under the Act are amenable to be dealt with as per CrPC. Furthermore, by the virtue of Section 4(2) of the Act, a police office is authorized to register an FIR in relation to the same. Similarly, the police office is further authorized to seize the means of conveyance under the Act but after such seizure, only the competent authority can deal with such means of conveyance. In this regard, jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or other authority has also been expressly ousted in the Act.

Court thus proceeded to consider whether it has power to interfere with the order passed under Section 6-A while exercising its inherent jurisdiction.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of State of W.B v Sujit Kumar Rana (2004), wherein it was observed that inherent power of High Court could be used only where an order was passed by the criminal court. Hence, the Court said that it needs to be seen whether the competent authority acted like a criminal court or in any other capacity while passing orders under Section 6-A.

The Court took into account certain Supreme Court precedents. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v Kallo Bai (2017), a vehicle involved in unauthorized transportation of teak-wood was seized under Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Voniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969. The Supreme Court observed that the confiscation proceedings were not criminal but quasi-judicial which were separate and distinct from the trial before the court for commission of offence.

Similarly, in the case of Abdul Vahab v State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), order of confiscation was passed against a truck under Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, even after acquittal of accused from criminal case. The Supreme Court held that even though confiscation proceedings were different from criminal prosecution and both may run simultaneously, if the accused was acquitted in the criminal case, the same should be factored in deciding the confiscation proceedings.

In the background of these cases, the Court firstly observed that the proceedings under Section 6-A were quasi-judicial in nature and not criminal. And while exercising power under Section 6-A, the competent authority also acted as a quasi-judicial authority and not like a criminal court. Secondly, the Court opined that even though the confiscation proceedings were independently maintained before the competent authority, separately than the criminal proceedings, the authority must be cautious in initiating and concluding the same. Furthermore, if the means of conveyance was seized by the police while registering an FIR and a trial was pending before a court, the decision in that trial should be taken into account by the competent authority.

“There is no doubt that the confiscation proceedings, which are commenced and concluded by the Competent Authority, are independent, distinct/ different and separate, than the criminal proceedings, which are initiated and concluded before the criminal Court, whenever an FIR is separately registered in respect of commission of offence under the RBA Act, 1995. 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…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.”

Thus, the Court said that once it was held that the competent authority acted independently and not like a criminal court, based on settled proposition of law, it was difficult for the Court to interfere with the order of confiscation under its inherent jurisdiction.

In light of this position and the fact that Section 6-A expressly barred the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or authority, the Court held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 should not be exercised. However, the Court opined that it could interfere with the confiscation order while exercising its powers of judicial review in the writ petitions. Hence, criminal writ petitions against the confiscation orders was maintainable.

Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed by the Court.

Title: Rameshwar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 141

Click Here To Read/Download Order