Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durg @ Durgesh Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20981
1 MCRC-10038-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10038 of 2025
DURG @ DURGESH SINGH LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Mahendra Pateria - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri C.M. Tiwari - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed against the 14.02.2025 passed by the Court of
Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Revision No.14/2025, whereby the order
dated 16.01.2025 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class
Tendukheda, District Damoh in Criminal Case No.545/2024 rejecting the
application filed by accused Durg Urf Durgesh Singh under section 451 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure was affirmed, where by both the Courts declined to
give custody of vehicle i.e. Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing registration number
MP20ZG5023 on supurdnama.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue has already been
decided by the Full Bench in W.P No.11356/2024 (Ramlal Jhariya Vs. State of
M.P & Others) and other connected matters by judgment dated 21.04.2025,
whereby Full Bench has declared Section 47-A of M. P. Excise Act ultra-vires
being violative of Article 300-A and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the direction
issued by Full Bench in paragraph No.97, the petitioner is entitled to get the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20981
2 MCRC-10038-2025
benefit of the said order .
4. The Full Bench in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) is held as under :-
"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
ultravires 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 exercising powers under the provisions of M.P. Excise
Act, 1915 and in case of Cow Progeny Act, if it is passed
before conclusion of trial, because it will be without
jurisdiction.
97. As we have held Section 47-A of the M.P. Excise Act to
be ultra-vires of Constitution of India, and a number of cases
must have been decided by now since the provision has been
in existence, therefore, to avoid any chaos and needless
heavy burden on State machinery and exchequer, we direct
that this order would be applicable only prospectively in the
following manner :-
a. for those pending cases where confiscation order has not
yet been passed by the Collector till date of this order,
this order will be applicable,
b. for the concluded cases where confiscation order
has already been passed prior to date of this order, this order
would apply only if an appeal/revision/petition under
Section 482 CrPC or U/s 528 BNSS/writ petition or
challenge in any manner is pending against confiscation
order as on date of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20981
3 MCRC-10038-2025
c. where either (a) the confiscation order or (b) order
in appeal has already been passed prior to date of this order,
the benefit of this order will be applicable only if statutory
limitation for challenging the same has not expired on date
of this order and if (c) order in Revision has been passed less
than three months prior to date of this order, then also,
benefit of this order will apply while making challenge
before the High Court in Writ petition/Section 482 CrPC or
Sec. 528 BNSS.
d. where the confiscation order has already been passed and
it has not been challenged, or if challenged, the challenge
has failed and not pending as on today and in case of
confiscation order or appellate order, limitation to challenge
the same has expired, or in case of Revisional order, same
has been passed more than three months prior to date of this
order and not put to challenge till today, confiscations in
those cases will stand closed and shall not be re-opened in
any manner for any purpose whatsoever for taking benefit of
this order."
5. In view of the judgment delivered by the Full Bench, the present petition
i s partly allowed . The order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Court of Sessions
Judge, Damoh, is hereby quashed.
6. Considering the fact that the criminal trial is still going on, upon
execution of supurdginama along with the surety of Rs.10 lac to the satisfaction of
the Judicial Magistrate First Class Tendukheda, District Damoh , vehicle bearing
registration number MP20ZG5023 be released on supurdginama till the
conclusion of the trial of Crime No. 238/2024.
7. With the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of .
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
Sateesh
