IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56333 of 2023 SUNIL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Nalini Gurung - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

1973, has been filed by the petitioner for seeking quashment of order dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, in Criminal Revision No.21/2023 and also the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindori, dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure A-2) in RCT No.404/2023.

2. In both the aforesaid orders, the application for interim custody of Hyundai Santro car, bearing registration no.MP-20-CJ-5945, seized in Crime No.211/2023, by police of Police Station, Dindori, was dismissed.

3. The facts of the case are that the said Hyundai Santro car was seized by the aforesaid police station for its involvement in the offence of Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (for short, "the Act"). An application moved by petitioner for taking the vehicle on interim custody was dismissed on 11.08.2023 by Magistrate Court and the revision petition preferred against dismissal order was also rejected on 08.09.2023.

4. Petitioner has assailed both the orders of courts below on the ground that courts were influenced of the fact that proceedings of confiscation of vehicle had already started in the Office of Collector, district Dindori, and both the courts were of the opinion that they did not have jurisdiction to release the vehicle on interim custody once the proceedings of confiscation were initiated and communicated to the Court. The submission of petitioner is that in the light of Full Bench judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 11356/2024 (Ramlal Jhariya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others and other connected matters), the provision of Section 47-A of the Act has been declared ultra vires and consequently the provision of Section 47-D of the Act too has been declared as inoperative in all cases where confiscation orders have not been passed as yet. A request has, therefore, been made to allow the petition and release the vehicle on interim custody to the petitioner who is the registered owner of the same.

5. State has opposed the petition claiming that the impugned orders deserve no interference.

6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.

7. Section 47-A of the Act provides that if the Collector is satisfied upon the material produced before it, that an offence of Section 34(1)(a) or (b) of the Act has been committed, and the quantity of liquor exceeds 50 bulk litres, he, under certain conditions, may confiscate the intoxicants, conveyance, etc. and may also pass an order of interim nature for the custody, disposal, etc. of these items. In the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, relied upon by the petitioner, the provision of Section 47-A of the Act conferring authority on the Collector to pass order for confiscation is declared ultra vires, further holding that authority of confiscation during pendency of criminal trial no longer survives with the Collector. According to this decision, only the criminal court conducting the trial of offence in terms of Sections 46 and 47 of the Act can pass the order for confiscation, therefore, this court is in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that dismissal of supurdgi application and also of revision petition on the ground that Collector has the power of confiscation is no longer a good law in the light of Full Bench judgment.

8. From the facts argued before this court and also the contentions made in petition, it is not clear whether any final confiscation order has been passed by the Collector, district Dindori, till date or not. One condition may be that the said order has still not been passed