Momin vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the confiscation of the vehicle and animals is impermissible when the criminal case is still pending, following the Full Bench decision in Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others. The Court found that the petitioner had lawfully purchased the animals, as evidenced by the purchase bills, and had paid GST. The State's counsel did not dispute the legal proposition regarding pending criminal cases and the verification of the petitioner's ownership and purchase documents. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the First Additional Sessions Judge. The application for interim custody under Sections 497 and 503 of B.N.S.S. was allowed, and the respondents were directed to release the 53 high-breed Murrah buffaloes and male calves upon the petitioner furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The issue of the ultimate guilt or innocence of the petitioner was not decided.

Facts

The petitioner, a trader, purchased 53 high-breed Murrah buffaloes and male calves from a registered firm, M/S Hind Livestock Traders, after duly paying GST. These animals were being transported to a livestock market in Kerala for sale. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioner under the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. The petitioner's application for interim custody of the seized animals under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch. This rejection was upheld by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, in revision. The petitioner then approached the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the confiscation of the vehicle and animals is permissible when a criminal case is still pending before the concerned court, as per the Full Bench decision in Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (W.P. No.11356 of 2024)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the confiscation of the vehicle and animals is bad in law when the criminal case is still pending, relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others. The petitioner also submitted that the animals were lawfully purchased after paying GST and were being transported for sale at a livestock market, with purchase bills filed on record. Revenue's contention: The State's counsel did not dispute the legal proposition cited by the petitioner. The ownership of the petitioner and the relevant documents for the purchase of the animals were verified.