IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 5 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21681 of 2020

IKRAR MOHAMMAD

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

None for the applicant.

Shri Atul Sharma - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

ORDER disclosed his name as Krishnapratap Gaur, son of Devendra Gaur, resident of Purani Basti, Bhind, while the person seated beside the driver disclosed his name as Harshvardhan Singh and the person seated on the rear seat disclosed his name as Amar Pratap Singh, and on inspection of the vehicle, 23 cardboard boxes were found placed on the rear and middle seats, each box upon being opened containing 50-50 quarters, totaling 1,150 plastic quarters of plain liquor, and when the accused were asked to produce a valid license for transportation and sale of liquor, they failed to do so, whereupon all three persons were arrested and the liquor along with the Bolero vehicle was seized from their possession; thereafter, the application submitted for release of the said Bolero vehicle on supurdgi (interim custody) was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 26.04.2020. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision bearing No.51/2020 which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.06.2020. Assailing the said order, the present petition has been preferred.

This petition under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is filed feeling

aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Bhind District Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 51/2020, whereby the revision petition filed by the revisionist/petitioner against the order dated 26.04.2020 passed in criminal case no. 354/2020 passed by Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bhind has been dismissed.

2. As per the case of prosecution, on 08-03-2020 at about 02:00 p.m.,

the Station House Officer of Police Station City Kotwali, Udaybhan Singh, acting on information received from an informer, reached the Bamba Pulia on Ater Road along with police force, where, as informed by the informer, after some time a Bolero vehicle bearing registration number MP-07-CC- 7140 arrived from the side of Agrawal Colony, which was stopped and checked; upon enquiring from the driver about his name and address, he

3. The presnet petition has been filed on the ground that learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind has rejected criminal revision filed by the petitioner for the reason that District Magistrate Bhind has given intimation regarding initiation of proceeding for confiscation of vehile i.e. Bolero seized in crime No. 123/2020, therefore, in view of Section 47-D of MP Excise Act, the order for interim custody of the vehicle cannot be passed. The District Magistrate has no authority to pass the order of confiscating the vehicle seized for offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the MP Excise Act, until the accused is convicted after trial by the competent Court of Judicial Magistrate.

4. Considered. Perused the record.

5. The Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 21/04/2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 11356 of 2024 (Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and the connected matters has held as under :

67. We, when test the impugned Section 47-A on the touchstone of principle of proportionality, see that the social and public interest projected before us is to carve out a preventive and deterrent measure to curb illegal smuggling of liquor and menace of spurious liquor. There is no general prohibition on liquor in Madhya Pradesh, it being a obnoxious trade carried out by the State under authority and license granted by the State to its contractors at regulated prices and unlicensed liquor amounts to loss of revenue to State apart from harming the society inasmuch supply becomes unregulated or at extreme end, there may be grave cases of spurious liquor or one unfit for human consumption, for which different provisions are incorporated in Excise Ac