ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 9.3.2022 passed in Criminal Revision Case No.16/2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, whereby, the order dated 27.7.2019 passed under Section 47-B of the CG Excise Act, by the Appellate Court of the Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Appeal Case No.R.E.C.-38/2018-19, was affirmed. By way of the aforesaid order dated 27.7.2019, the Appellate Court has affirmed the order dated 16.1.2019 passed by the Collector, Kabirdham, whereby, the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.MP 18GA 3638, has been confiscated.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.12.2017, on the basis of a secret information, Police Station – Piparia, District Kabirdham, intercepted the vehicles i.e. Mahindra Scorpio and Mahindra Pickup bearing registration Nos. CG 04 CR 7000 and MP 18GA 3638 respectively and on search, illicit liquor was found to be kept in the said vehicles. Thereafter, on account of transportation of illicit liquor in the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 18 GA 3638, Crime No.277/2017 was registered for the offence under Sections 34(2), 34 (1) A, 37, 41 of the CG Excise Act. However, the accused persons were acquitted in Criminal Case No.89/18 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kabirdham vide judgment dated 26.2.2021. During pendency of the said criminal proceedings, the Collector vide order dated 16.1.2019 passed the confiscation order and the said order was affirmed by the Appellate Court and consequently, by the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are bad in law. He submits that since the accused persons have already been acquitted of the charges under Section 34(1) of the CG Excise Act, the judgment rendered in the criminal trial should be factored while deciding the confiscation proceeding. He submits that when the accused persons have already been acquitted, deprivation of the property violates the right granted to the accused under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He submits that this proposition was laid down in the matter of Abdul Vahab Vs. State of M.P., 2022 SCC OnLine 262. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Smt. Roop Kumari Sidar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Order dated 24.6.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No.221/2016 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court), wherein, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the matter of Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P., 2000 (1) MPLJ (FB) 389, wherein, a principle has been laid down that ‘once criminal case is pending, confiscation proceeding should not be held and finalized’, and the same was also subsequently affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madhukar Rao, 2008 (14) SCC 624. Therefore, he prays for quashing of the impugned orders and releasing the subject vehicle.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State does not dispute the legal proposition which has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the aforesaid ratio still holds the field. However, he submits that the authorities proceeded in accordance with law, therefore, impugned order(s) does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition.

6. In the matter of Abdul Vahab (supra), the effect of order of the acquittal in criminal trial for deciding confiscation proceedings was dealt with and the following was held vide para 23 :

“23.

…………………………………………………………………

…… But in a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the Criminal Prosecution, the judgment given in the Criminal Trial should be factored in by the District Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding. In the