Confiscation orders under the M.P. Excise Act can be issued despite ongoing criminal trials, necessitating a reference to a Larger Bench due to conflicting opinions among Coordinate Benches.

ORDER :

Vinay Saraf, J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of confiscation passed by the Collector, District Narsinghpur under Section 47 (A)(2) of the M.P.Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1915') on 14.08.2023, whereby the vehicle Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.MP04-TB-2350 owned by petitioner was ordered to be confiscated. Petitioner has challenged the order of Collector passed under Section 47 (A)(2) of the Act, 1915 by preferring the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the order passed during the pendency of criminal case registered under Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1915 and, therefore the order is without jurisdiction and the same can be assailed in the writ petition.

2.The short facts of the case are that, on 25.01.2023, upon secrete information, Police party stopped and searched vehicle in question Mahindera Bolero driven by Manish Singh Thakur and 35 crates of illicit liquor (315 bulk liters) were found in the vehicle. Police Station Suatala, District Narsinghpur registered Crime No.34/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1915 against respondents No.3 and 4 and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against them wherein the petitioner is not an accused.

3.A report was forwarded by Station House Officer, Police Station Suatala, District Narsinghpur for confiscation of the vehicle and the intimation for the same was forwarded to the competent Judicial Magistrate. After registering the Confiscation Case No.0019B/121/2023-24, Collector Narsinghpur issued notices to the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4. The petitioner appeared and filed reply, wherein the petitioner stated that the vehicle was used without his knowledge and connivance. He filed the copy a rent agreement to demonstrate that the vehicle was provided by petitioner to respondent No.3 on rent and the vehicle cannot be confiscated in view of facts and circumstances of the case. The Collector Narsinghpur after considering the reply of the petitioner and facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of available material and evidence, passed the impugned order on 14.08.2023, whereby ordered to confiscate the vehicle under the provision of Section 47 (A)(2) of the Act, 1915.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Collector Narsinghpur is without jurisdiction as criminal case registered on the basis of the charge sheet filed after completion of investigation in respect of Crime No.34/2023 is pending and the same has not been culminated into conviction, and therefore, the Collector was not empowered to confiscate the vehicle during the pendency of criminal case. He relied on the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the matter of State of M.P. and others vs. Madhukar Rao , (2008) 14 SCC 624 , whereby the Apex Court after considering the provisions of Section 39 (1)(d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act held that, until and unless, pending criminal trial culminated to the conviction of accused, no order for confiscation of any article including vehicle can be passed. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under:-

“ 13 . At the same time, amendments were made in Section 39 (1)(d) after which it reads as follows:

“39. Wild animals, etc., to be government property.—

(1) Every—

(a)-(c)***

(d) vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of this Act, shall be the property of the State Government,