[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Golu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4438
1 MCRC-36144-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 11th 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
aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by the 1 s t 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4438
2 MCRC-36144-2025
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4438
3 MCRC-36144-2025
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 relates to confiscation by the District Magistrate. The only
provision as per Rule 5 is as under:-
"5. Confiscation by District Magistrate :-
In case of any violation of section 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicle,
cow progeny and beef, and the District Magistrate shall confiscate such vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per
the provisions of section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No.2 of 1974) in following manner :-
(i) He shall take possession of the vehicle;
(ii) He shall intimate the Veterinary Department to take in custody of the cow-progeny and beef.
(iii) The beef of cow-progeny shall be disposed of by the department by such procedure as he deems fit."
88. The aforesaid Rule 5 also does not relate to any particular procedure to be followed, any particular
person to be noticed or a defence to be taken by a person in the confiscation proceedings. The rule only
states that the District Magistrate shall confiscate vehicle etc. as per provisions of Section 100 of
Criminal Procedure Code.The erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure in Section 100 thereof related to
search and seizure and not confiscation. It is really surprising that how the procedure of Section 100
Cr.P.C. can be borrowed for the purpose of confiscation of vehicles and articles, which is totally
irrelevant for the said purpose. No doubt search and seizure can take place by following procedure under
Section 100, but it is beyond comprehension of this Court that by following the provisions of Section
100 for search and seizure, confiscation can take place by the District Magistrate. Therefore, it is to be
held that no procedure for confiscation has been laid down either in the Cow Progeny Act or in the Rules
of 2012 framed under the said Act, though only enabling provision for confiscation is there. The burden
of proof is on the owner in trial before Court, who may or may not be the owner of vehicle.
89. Further, as per the provisions of the Cow Progeny Act, confiscation can take place in case of
violation of Section 4, which prohibits slaughter of Cow Progeny. Section 5 prohibits possession and
transport of beef and Section 6 prohibits transport of Cow Progeny for slaughter. Section 6-A prohibits
export of Cow Progeny and grant of permit. Section 6-B prohibits transport of Cow Progeny through the
State of Madhya Pradesh and provides for grant of transit permit.
90. In the aforesaid six provisions for violation of which confiscation can take place, no defence is
carved out in the confiscation proceedings that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or
connivance of the owner of vehicle. The only whisper to be found is in Section 6, which relates to the
person transporting cow progeny or causing it to be transported himself or by his agent servant etc. for
the purpose of slaughter or with the knowledge and it will be or likely to be slaughter.
91. No defence seems to be carved out in all the aforesaid provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B
that the owner of vehicle can raise a defence that the vehicle was used without his knowledge. In fact,
Sections 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B are the criminal provisions and they would not apply to owner of the
vehicle, but would apply only where the owner is the transporter also. However, no further defence has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4438
4 MCRC-36144-2025
been carved out in Section 11(5), which relates to confiscation of vehicle of the owner being able to raise
a defence in confiscation proceedings that the vehicle was used for the offence under the act without his
knowledge or connivance. Therefore, so far as the rights given to the owners of vehicles are concerned, it
appears that the provisions are not different from the provisions of Excise Act discussed above. Only a
whisper of knowledge is found in Section 6, which is very ambiguous. The relevant fact is use of the
vehicle in a particular manner, and the knowledge of the transporter, without any reference to knowledge
of the owner is irrelevant because confiscation hits the owner, and not the transporter nor the supplier.
92. Very importantly, no power is given to Trial Court under Cow Progeny Act to pass order for
confiscation and the only power is given to District Magistrate/Collector. In this view of the matter, it
would have been appropriate that a proper procedure for enquiry had been laid down before the District
Magistrate/Collector, and the lack of knowledge and connivance of owner/his agent had been engrafted
in the said Act or Rules, so that the law would have ensured that the owner stood a proper chance to
plead, represent and defend his case. However, the question of constitutionality of provisions of Cow
Progeny Act relating to confiscation is neither referred before us, nor prayed in the petition in which
reference has been made.
93. The issue relating to Cow Progeny Act has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Abdul Vahab (supra) wherein the Supreme Court reversed the confiscation as the accused had been
acquitted in criminal trial. It was held that the order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to
connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the truck of appellant therein when he stood
acquitted in the criminal prosecution, was held amounting to arbitrary deprivation of his property and
violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300-A. It was held not only arbitrary but also
inconsistent with the legal requirements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that confiscation despite
acquittal by criminal court cannot be allowed to stand. The fact of acquittal was held to be a relevant
factor in the matter of confiscation of vehicle.
94. As already discussed above, no defence of lack of knowledge and connivance of the owner has been
made available to the owner, nor has any procedure for confiscation been laid down. Therefore, it is held
that though the proceedings for confiscation can be initiated and proceeded parallel to 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. We
are also fortified in our conclusion by a recent order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.
1910-1911/2024 (Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan) wherein the Supreme Court held that confiscation
under Section 6-A of The Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of
Temporary Migration of Export) Act 1995 will not be given effect to during pendency of criminal trial.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4438
5 MCRC-36144-2025
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.
6. Thus, the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held
Section 47A of MP Excise Act to be ultra-vires of the Constitution of India.
But no such direction is passed with reference to Section 11 of Madhya
Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam. The Full Court has held that
the District Magistrate shall be competent to initiate proceedings for
confiscation of the vehicle during pendency of the criminal trial. However,
no final confiscation order be passed before completion of criminal trial.
Section 11(5) and (6) of Govansh Vadh Pratishedh (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam
provides as under:-
(5) Provided that no order of confiscation shall be made under this section
unless the Collector issues an intimation in the prescribed format regarding
the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the seized conveyance,
cow progeny and beef to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence for
which such seizure has been made.
(6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act or any
other law for the time being in force, the Court having jurisdiction to try
offences covered by Section 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B on account of which
seizure has been made, shall not make any order about the disposal or
custody of the conveyance, cow progeny and beef seized after it is
received from the Collector an intimation under sub-section (5) above
about the initiation of the proceedings for the confiscation of the seized
conveyance, cow progeny and beef.
7. Apparently, these provisions restrain the Court of Judicial
Magistrate from passing any order of release of vehicle once the intimation
with regard to initiation of confiscation proceeding by District Magistrate
has been received. Since the intimation with regard to initiation of
confiscation proceedings was communicated to the Court of Judicial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4438
6 MCRC-36144-2025
Magistrate First Class, Jeerapur, District Rajgarh, the trial Court as well as
revisional Court committed no error in declining to release the vehicle.
8. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned orders do not suffer from any manifest impropriety much
less an illegality. So, no case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023.
9. Consequently, the present petition being meritless is dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
