Confiscation proceedings under the M.P. Excise Act are independent of criminal trials, and an acquittal does not invalidate a confiscation order.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 3.11.2021 passed by Collector, Satna in case no.147/B/121/2021-22, by which vehicle Bolero four-wheeler bearing registration no. MP19-CA-7483 has been confiscated on the allegation that it was found illegally transporting 34.560 bulk liters of english liquor. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed an appeal against the said order and has approached this Court directly on the basis of judgment passed by JMFC, Satna on 12.10.2023 in Case No. 483/2021, by which, accused has been acquitted for offence under Section 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in question. Driver of the vehicle who was arrested along with vehicle and contraband was tried for offence under Section 34 (2) of the M.P. Excise Act and by judgment dated 12.10.2023 he has been acquitted, therefore, it is claimed that vehicle in question could not have been confiscated. To buttress his contention, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Thadani vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 13.10.2023 in W.P.No.25846/2023 and Chhotelal Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 23.1.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.43470/2023.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that confiscation proceedings and criminal trial are two different proceedings and conviction of the accused is not sine quo non for confiscation of the vehicle. To buttress his contention, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others vs. Kallo Bai, reported in 2017 (14) SCC 502.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Before considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would like to consider the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Thadani (supra), which reads as under :-

“By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the District Magistrate Satna, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for release of his vehicle, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration number MP-04 CJ-8886 (XUV Car) was confiscated in an excise offence, but since the petitioner has been acquitted in the alleged offence vide judgment dated 01.11.2021, therefore, his vehicle should also be released.

3. Considering the aforesaid, though the objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent/State, but I am inclined to consider and allow this petition. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The order dated 21.08.2023 contained in Annexure-P/2 passed by the District Magistrate Satna is hereby set aside. The authority is directed to release vehicle of the petitioner as he acquitted in the offence in which his vehicle was seized after getting satisfied with the documents of ownership, if any, is submitted by the petitioner.

4. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.”

6. From plain reading of this order it is clear that no reasons have been assigned for setting aside the order of confiscation. Even objections raised by the respondents / State were not reproduced and the order was passed by mentioning that “I am inclined to consider and allow this petition.”

7. Only question for consideration is that whether assigning of a reason is necessary even in judicial proceeding or not.

8. This question is no more res integra.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Trustees vs. M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 443 has held as under :-

“13. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the app