ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 14.6.2021 by which the vehicle of the petitioner MP-09- CZ-5698 has been ordered to be confiscated under Section 47(A)(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Facts of the case are that a case under section 34(2) of the Act was registered at Police Station Chandan Nagar, District Indore bearing Crime No.535/2020 against Rahul and two other persons alleging that accused persons were transporting 360 bulk liter country made liquor in the said vehicle. During investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner being registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. He had applied for vehicle on Supurdginama before the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the same vide order dated 2.9.2022 mainly on the ground that an intimation of initiation of proceedings of confiscation was already received from the Magistrate and therefore, in view of the bar under section 47(D) the trial Court could not have passed the order for release of the vehicle against the said order the revision was preferred which was dismissed. However, the same order was challenged before this Court in M.Cr.C. No.37732/2020 (Bhaskar Sonane v. State of M.P.) and the same was dismissed on 28.1.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the trial, the Collector has passed the impugned order of confiscation dated 14.6.2021 contrary to the provisions of section 47(A)(2) of Excise Act. It is argued that during the pendency of the trial, the Collector cannot pass an order for confiscation. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on orders passed by Coordinate Bench in the case of Sheikh Kalim v. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No.1296/2015, Suresh v. State of M.P. and Others(W.P. No.19528/2022 ) order dated 11.5.2023, Aman v. State of M.P. and Others (W.P. No.12666/2023) vide order dated 14/06/2023 and also in the case of Akash Raikwar v. State of M.P and Others (W.P. No.18178/2023) vide order dated 28.7.2023.

4. In the aforesaid cases, after considering the provisions of section 47(A)(2) of the Excise Act, the Court held that the word used “an offence has been committed” has to be interpreted that unless trial is concluded and offence is proved in the trial under section 34(2) under the M.P. Excise Act, the order for confiscation cannot be passed.

5. The relevant provision under section 47(A)(2) reads as under:-

(2) When the Collector, upon production before him of intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. or on receipt of a report about such seizure as the case may be, is satisfied that an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 34 has been committed and where the quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeds fifty bulk litres he may, on the ground to be recorded in writing, order the confiscation of the intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. so seized. He may, during the pendency of the proceedings for such confiscation also pass an order of interim nature for the custody, disposal etc. of the confiscated intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. as may appear to him to be necessary in the circumstances of the case.

6. The word “offence has been committed” used in the said subsection has rightly been interpreted by Coordinate Bench that the “offence has been committed” is to mean that when the trial Court has recorded a finding that the offence has been proved then the order of confiscation can be passed by the Collector therefore it is held that till the trial is not concluded the Collector cannot pass an order of confiscation.

7. The peri materia provisions of Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 were considered in the case of Sheikh Kalim (supr