Kamta Prasad vs State Of M.P. Thru Secretary
2023 Latest Caselaw 451 MP

                                 1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                    ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No. 47 of 2006

BETWEEN:-
KAMTA PRASAD S/O SANTU RAM SAHU, AGED ABOUT
48   YEARS, OCCUPATION:   AGRICULTURIST R/O
BAJRANG NAGAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI J.P. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    STATE OF M.P. THR.             SECRETARY EXCISE
      DEPARTMENT, VALLABH            BHAVAN, BHOPAL,
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER M.P., MOTIMAHAL,
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    THE COLLECTOR          DISTT.    BHIND (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    THE DISTRICT EXCISE OFFICER DISTT. BHIND
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    POLICE STATION, CITY KOTWALI, BHIND
      THROUGH : ITS POLICE STATION INCHARGE,
      CITY    KOTWALI,   DISTT.BHIND (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.K.AGARWAL - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

Instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

i. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and thereby issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders contained in Annexure P/2 and P/3 and also quash the entire proceedings of confiscation of vehicle, Mahindra Pickup Jeep No.MP32/G- 0017 of which, the petitioner is registered owner and further also the Collector, Distt. Bhind (MP) and District Excise Officer may kindly be directed to release the vehicle in pursuance of the order dated 26.10.2005 contained in Annexure P/1 and also quash the other proceedings drawn against the petitioner. The respondents are further directed to release the said Mahindra Pickup Jeep No.MP32/G- 0017 of the petitioner;

ii. Any other suitable further orders may kindly be passed in the interest of justice. ii. Costs may kindly be awarded".

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.11.2009 (W.P. No.4652/2005 Laxmi Kant Vs. State of M.P. and others ), and submits that issue in question is squarely answered by the said order and in pursuance thereof, certain more orders have been passed. He further relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Vahab Vs. State of M.P. (in Cr.Appeal No.340 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Cri) No.8964 of 2019) on 04.03.2022 (Paras 20 and 21) wherein, it was held that the confiscation of the appellant's truck (in that case) when he is acquitted in the criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A of the

Constitution of India and seeks parity.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State fairly submitted that issue involves is identical vis-a-vis cases referred above.

Heard.

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is finally disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.11.2009 (W.P. No.4652/2005 Laxmi Kant Vs. State of M.P. and others) and by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Vahab Vs. State of M.P. (in Cr.Appeal No.340 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Cri) No.8964 of 2019) on 04.03.2022 (Paras 20 and 21). Directions as contained therein, shall be made applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Looking to the aforesaid principle of law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court and By Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases stated herein above, when the prosecution has failed to prove before a Competent Court of jurisdiction that the vehicle was being used in illegal transportation of foreign liquor, in such circumstances, vehicle could not be confiscated by the authorities.

Consequently, the Petition of the petitioner stands allowed and disposed of. The impugned orders Annexures P/2 and P/3 dated 28.02.2005 and 19.10.2005 respectively are hereby quashed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Rks RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2023.01.12 19:00:05 +05'30'