SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(MP) 957

VIVEK AGARWAL
MADDURI NAGENDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anubhav Singhal.
For the Respondent: Rohit Jain.

Table of Content
1. order of confiscation without trial pending. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding existing precedents and alternative remedies. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court's reasoning on interpretation of laws. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. dismissal of the petition. (Para 9)

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 6-6-2023 passed by the Court of Additional Collector, District Khandwa in Excise Case No. 132/B-121/2020-2021 on the ground that Collector/Additional Collector could not have ordered for confiscation of the vehicle used in commission of an excise offence without there being pendency of the trial before the Criminal Court.

2. In support reliance is placed by Shri Anubhav Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in W. P. No. 19528/2022 decided on 11-5-2023 wherein in Para 9 Hon’ble Coordinate Bench has mentioned as under:

    “9. Since the word “offence has been committed” is used, therefore, the Collector cannot pass an order for confiscation during pendency of the trial. The vehicle can be confiscated either by a Magistrate while convicting the accused or after conviction under s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top