Confiscation and acquittal principles require due regard to criminal findings before depriving property under the 2004 Act.

Where the confiscation statute does not exclude the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court may exercise Section 482 jurisdiction in relation to confiscation proceedings because the scheme under the 2004 Act and the 2012 Rules operates alongside the Code and includes procedural use of criminal process. Confiscation of the truck could not be sustained after the owner's acquittal in the connected criminal case, because Section 13A shifts the burden in prosecution and not in confiscation proceedings. The acquittal on the absence of intended slaughter was a material consideration, and ignoring it rendered the confiscation arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 300A.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to confiscation proceedings under the 2004 Act; (ii) whether confiscation of the truck could be sustained despite the truck owner's acquittal in the criminal prosecution and whether the burden of proof under Section 13A applied to confiscation proceedings.

Issue (i): whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to confiscation proceedings under the 2004 Act.

Analysis: The confiscation scheme under the 2004 Act and the 2012 Rules did not contain a non obstante clause excluding criminal court jurisdiction in the manner found in the forest legislation relied upon by the State. On the contrary, Section 11(4) applied the Code of Criminal Procedure to search and seizure, and Section 11A(4) expressly empowered interim release by the appellate authority. Rule 5 and the connected provisions operated with the procedural framework of the Code. The bar accepted by the High Court was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court was competent to entertain the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (ii): whether confiscation of the truck could be sustained despite the truck owner's acquittal in the criminal prosecution and whether the burden of proof under Section 13A applied to confiscation proceedings.

Analysis: Confiscation is a serious deprivation of property and must satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements. Section 13A shifts the burden in prosecution, not in confiscation proceedings. The criminal trial had ended in acquittal on the finding that the essential ingredient of intended slaughter was not proved. In these circumstances, the confiscation order, passed without giving due effect to the acquittal, was arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 300A. Confiscation is not automatic and the result of the criminal trial is a material consideration in the confiscation process.

Conclusion: The confiscation could not be sustained and the burden under Section 13A did not justify confiscation.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order and the judgment upholding it were set aside, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the confiscation statute does not exclude the Code of Criminal Procedure, confiscation is not automatic, and an acquittal in the connected criminal prosecution must be duly considered before depriving a person of property.

---