IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23309 of 2025 SAJJAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sachin Singh Yadav - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Aditya Narayan Gupta- Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C/ 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of impugned order dated 25-04-2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sausar District Chhindawara in Criminal Revision No. 01/25 and another order passed by District Magistrate(Collector), Pandhurna dated 10-09-2024 in which the vehicle bearing registration No. MH-18BG-8462 in Crime No. 53/24 has been confiscated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge-sheet RCT No.

143/2024 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sausar under Sections 4, 6, 9, of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004; Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Section 11 MP. Krishak Pashu Pariraksahn Adhiniyam and Section 66& 192 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in which the vehicle bearing registration No. MH-18BG-8462 was seized.

3. It is further submitted that on the application filed by the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sausar vide order dated 18-08-2024 directed to release the vehicle on Supurdginama and during the pendency of this case, the Collector/District Magistrate by passing order dated 10-09-2024, confiscated the vehicle, against that order, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Revisional Court, Sausar of Additional Sessions Judge, Sausar District Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No. 01/225 which was rejected vide order dated

25-04-2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court without application of mind has passed the impugned order, which is bad in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that trial is pending and the Collector is not empowered to confiscate the vehicle. This is clear cut violation of Full Court judgment passed by this court in the bunch of petitions WP No. 11356/24( Ramlal Jhariya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others ) and other connected petitions. Therefore, the order passed by the Collector be set aside and Vehicle No. MH-18BG-8462 be released in favour of petitioner.

4. In this regard, paragraph Nos. 96 and 97 of the Full Court judgment of this Court passed in WP No. 11356/24 and other connected matters is reproduced hereinbelow:

"96. Therefore, the questions referred to us in the matter of jurisdiction to pass confiscation order during pendency of criminal proceedings under M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Cow Progeny Act are answered in the following manner :

A. Section 47-A of M.P. Excise Act conferring authority on the Collector to pass order for confiscation is declared ultra-vires being disproportionately violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, question of confiscation by the Collector during pendency of criminal trial no longer survives in the matter, as order for confiscation can now be passed only by the Criminal Court trying the offence in terms of sections 46 and 47 thereof. As a necessary consequence thereto, Section 47-D would become inoperative in all cases where confiscation orders have not been passed as yet, having rendered superfluous.

B. For cases under Cow Progeny Act, the Collector/District Magistrate shall be competent to initiate proceedings for confiscation during pendency of criminal trial, but no confiscation order can be passed before conclusion of criminal trial and the Collector/District Magistrate would be empowered to confiscate the vehicle only if conviction is recorded in criminal trial and involvement of vehicle and knowledge/connivance of the owner is proved in the criminal trial.

C. Writ petition is maintainable once an order is passed by the Collector/District Magistrate confiscating the vehicles by ex