IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36144 of 2025 GOLU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Yash Bhavsar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Sunit Kapoor, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER

1. This petition under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is filed feeling s t aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by the 1 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Rajgarh(Biaora) in Criminal Revision No.57/2025, whereby the revision petition filed by the revisionist/petitioner against the order dated 27.05.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jeerapur, District Rajgarh in Criminal Case/Crime No.106/2025 has been dismissed.

2. As per the case of prosecution, the police force of P.S. Jeerapur, District Rajgarh(M.P.) seized pickup vehicle bearing registration No. MP-09- DM-6484 and Maruti Car Celerio ZXI(O) BSI bearing registration No.MP- 13-CB-7416 on allegation of transporting of cow progeny on 26.03.2025 at village Polakheda. Twelve Cow Progeny were found tied on a plot situated at village Polakheda for the purpose of selling and slaughtering and the aforesaid car and pickup were alleged to be used for transportation of cow progeny. The Police Station - Jeerapur, District Rajgarh(Biaora) registered FIR at Crime No.106/2025 for offence punishable under sections 4, 6 and 9 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam against the petitioner -

Golu

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the order dated

27.05.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jeerapur contends that the Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Section 497 of the BNSS on the ground that the District Magistrate, Rajgarh has initiated proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle in question vide intimation letter dated 25.05.2025. The revisional Court erroneously affirmed the order of JMFC, vide impugned order dated 17.07.2025. Learned counsel further referring to the order dated 21/04/2025, passed by the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 11356 of 2024 (Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and the connected matters, contends that the District Magistrate has no authority to pass the order of confiscating the vehicle seized for offence punishable under sections 6 and 9 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam until the accused is convicted after trial by the competent Court of Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the trial in connection with Crime No.106/2025 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jeerapur. No conviction is recorded against the accused, therefore, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error.

4. Considered. Perused the record.

5. The Full Bench of this Court in case of Ram Lal Jhariya (supra) and the connected matters has held as under :

85. By carrying out amendment to the said Act vide Notification dated 16.08.2024, proviso has been inserted in Section 11(5) and a new sub-section 11(6) has been inserted whereby the jurisdiction of the Court to make order about disposal or custody of the vehicles and Cow Progeny seized has been excluded once intimation about initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 11(5) is received by the Magistrate.

86. From a bare perusal of language of Section 11 (5) of the Cow Progeny Act, it is seen that the provision therein is that the District Magistrate shall confiscate the seized vehicles etc. in such manner as may be prescribed. No particular procedure for confiscation proceedings has been laid down in Section 11, nor any specific provision for hearing any person including owner of vehicle has been laid down in the said provision.

87. Rules are framed by the State Government under the said Act, which are known as M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012. Rule 5 thereof relat