Mahendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 April, 2026

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28999




                                                              1                           MCRC-34358-2025
                              IN        THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                           BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
                                                   ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2026
                                              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34358 of 2025
                                                         MAHENDRA
                                                            Versus
                                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Rajendra Yadav - Advocate for petitioner.

                                   Shri P.Raj - PL for respondent/State.

                                                                  ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 aggrieved by the order dated 24-07-2025 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul in Criminal Revision No. 11/25 whereby the revision petition has been dismissed vide order dated 27-06- 2025 affirming the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Multai District Betul in RCT No. 348/2025 by which the trial court as well as the Revisional Court has rejected the application for releasing the vehicle on

Supurdaginama on the ground that confiscation proceedings have started and the trial court has no jurisdiction to grant interim custody of the vehicle.

2. The vehicle bearing registration number MH-27-X-7289 has been seized by Police Station, Multai District Betul under the crime No.430/2025 for offence u/ss. 4, 6, 9 of Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and 11(1) (D) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28999

2 MCRC-34358-2025 Act,1960.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court without application of mind has passed the impugned order, which is bad in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that trial is pending and the Collector is not empowered to confiscate the vehicle. This is clear cut violation of Full Court judgment passed by this court in the bunch of petitions WP No. 11356/24( Ramlal Jhariya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others ) and other connected petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition stating that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated due to illegal transportation for animals for cruelty.

5. Considering the fact that trial would take considerable time and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624, that the vehicle can be released on supurdginama till the period the criminal case is not finally disposed of.

6. In this regard, paragraph No. 96 of the Full Court judgment of this Court passed in WP No. 11356/24 and other connected matters is reproduced hereinbelow:

"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 ultra-vires

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28999

3 MCRC-34358-2025 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.

7. In this case it is clearly held that the Collector/District Magistrate shall be competent to initiate proceedings for confiscation during the

pendency of Criminal trial but, no confiscation order can be passed before

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28999

4 MCRC-34358-2025 conclusion of criminal trial and the Collector/District Magistrate would be empowered to confiscate the vehicle only if conviction is recorded in criminal trial. Since, criminal trial is pending, therefore, the Collector is not empowered to confiscate the vehicle and therefore, the order passed by the Collector, Trial court and Revisional Court are set aside and the trial Court is directed to release the vehicle.

8. As vehicle is kept in open under the sun and rain, it would be subject to damage, the same can be released on supurdginama. In this regard reference can also be made to the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 . This application is allowed. The vehicle City bearing registration number MH-27-X-7289 Bolero pick up van be delivered to the petitioner on Supurdginama subject to producing of the original Registration Certificate and on satisfying the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall furnish a solvent surety of Rs.5 lacs to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required.

(ii) The petitioner shall not transfer/sale/alienate or create third party interest in respect of vehicle in question without the permission of trial Court.

(iii) The petitioner will not change the parts, colour or machinery, except for necessary repairs for smooth running of the vehicle.

(iv) The petitioner will produce the vehicle at his own expenses as and when directed to be produced.

(v) The petitioner shall not use the vehicle for any similar offence.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28999

5 MCRC-34358-2025

(vi) If the above conditions are breached, learned trial Court may forthwith pass an order for seizure of the vehicle and proceed in accordance with law.

(vii) The petitioner shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number of vehicle in question. Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer who will be deputed by the trial court and to be kept in the file of the case.

(viii) The petitioner will produce the vehicle as and when required by the trial Court during the trial till disposal of the criminal case as well as by the confiscating authority till final disposal of the confiscation proceeding pending, if any.

(ix) The petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used for any anti social activities.

(x) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the petitioner shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation.

9. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed/disposed off.

(B. P. SHARMA) JUDGE