Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, empowers the police officer to seize any property that may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, authorises the seizure and detention of a motor vehicle by a police officer or any other person authorised by the State Government on that behalf if such officer or person has reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being used without a certificate of registration or without a permit as required under sub-s. (1) of s. 42 or in contravention of any condition of such permit.
Can a truck be confiscated even after the accused persons have been acquitted from the criminal case?
Can the Deputy General Manager (Traffic), the Assistant Depot Managers and the Traffic Inspectors of the State Road Transport Corporation could not have been authorised by the State Government to discharge the powers under section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?
Is Section 129A of the MV Act, 1939 violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
The Supreme Court has held that a truck confiscated on account of the criminal proceedings alone cannot be withheld and then confiscated by the State when the original proceedings have culminated into acquittal. To deprive any person of their property, it is necessary for the State to establish that the property was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds of crime or that the deprivation is warranted for a public purpose or public interest.
The Deputy General Manager (Traffic), the Assistant Depot Managers, and the Traffic Inspectors of the Corporation cannot discharge powers under Section 129A of the MV Act, 1939. The expression ‘other person’ mentioned in Section 129A of the Act can only refer to a Government Officer and not to any officer or employee of any statutory corporation or to any other private person.
The Supreme Court has held that Section 129A of the MV Act is intra vires the Constitution of India and does not violate any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.340 OF 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8964 OF 2019)
ABDUL VAHAB APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGEMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pulkit Tare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. Leave granted.
The primary challenge in this appeal is to the Confiscation Order dated 09.08.2017 for the appellant’s truck (bearing No.MP/09/GF/2159), passed by the District Magistrate, Agar Malwa, purporting to exercise powers under Section 11(5) of the M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the 2004 Act’) and Rule 5 of the M.P Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012. The Confiscation order was affirmed on 22.9.2018 by the Court of Additional Commissioner, Ujjain. The Revision Petition challenging the confiscation order was dismissed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in the Criminal Revision No.211/2018. The Truck owner preferred a Petition under section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, the High Court affirmed the orders passed by the forums below, while holding that no error has been committed by the District Magistrate in ordering the truck’s confiscation, even after acquittal of the accused persons from the criminal case.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
The Judgments discuss M.P. Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, M.P Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 129A/Section 207 (Power to detain vehicles used without a certificate of registration, permit, etc) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.
Seizure of vehicles is a common practice in various cases of theft, robbery, murder, etc. However, the power conferred on the police officer to seize vehicles is not mandatory but discretionary and need not be exercised all the time. If a police officer has seized a suspected vehicle, they are obligated to prepare a report of the seizure and send it to the court. If you need help with contesting the seizure of your vehicle, it is advised that you consult a civil lawyer who is well-equipped with intricate legal knowledge of the issue.
641+ Lawyers are online 
