Satendra Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2026

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2314




                                                              1                           MCRC-28826-2020
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                        BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
                                                 ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2026
                                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28826 of 2020
                                                  SATENDRA RATHORE
                                                        Versus
                                       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Girija Shankar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Shri Rrajendra Singh Yadav - Dy. Additional Advocate General for
                          the State.

                                                                  ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Additional Excise Commissioner, Gwalior in Appeal No.84/2019-20, whereby order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Collector, District Morena in Case (Excise) No.37/2018- 19/B-121 has been confirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2 . As per the prosecution story, on 23.01.2018, Sub Inspector Rajesh

Kumar Garg, Police Station Chinnoni registered a case stating that he received an information through informer that a Bulero Pick-up loading vehicle came from the Devgarh to Sabaigarh. On that information, Sub- Inspector and other police persons came at Chinnoni Nahar Pulia and saw a Bulero Pick-up vehicle No. MP06-GA1832 (White Color) came from the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2314

2 MCRC-28826-2020 village Brajgadi. They tried to stop the vehicle, but the driver has not stopped the vehicle and run away. Therefore police officers followed them and at near Patthan Nala, the two persons left the vehicle and run away from the spot. On searching the vehicle, 30 boxes of country made liquor have been found and the seizure memo has been prepared.

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, application was filed for supurdginama of the vehicle bearing registration No.MP06-GA-1832 before the Excise Commissioner and Excise Commissioner has rejected the said application vide order dated 20.03.2020 stating that there is an information regarding confiscation of vehicle whereas, intimation was received from the Collector, Morena on 14.10.2019. This fact has also been acknowledged by the Excise Commissioner in its order dated 20.03.2019. Even then, application

was rejected. It is further submitted that if the intimation of confiscation of the alleged vehicle is given to the Magistrate prior to the date of filing of application, then the vehicle should not be released. The Excise Commissioner has grossly erred in taking into account the provisions envisaged under Section 47-D of MP Excise Act, 1915 while rejecting the said application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jafar S/o Hanif decided on 22.02.2024 in Cr.R. No. 5303/2023 and in the case State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vahid Khan decided on 30.07.2024 in Cr.R. No.6219/2019. It also submitted that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle and the present value of the vehicle is approximately Rs.10/- lacs and he is ready to furnish cash surety of Rs.2 lacs either in the form of FD or Bank Guarantee before the Trial Court. Hence, alleged vehicle should be released.

5. On the other hand, Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2314

3 MCRC-28826-2020

by submitting that the learned Commissioner has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner, the vehicle was being used in the crime. Hence, he is not entitled for releasing the said vehicle on supurdginama. However, he has not disputed the approximate value of the vehicle and conceded the fact that the information was received on 14.10.2019, while the application of supurdginama was filed and rejected by Commissioner with regard to confiscation from the Collector.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. So far as the contention regarding Section 47-D of Excise Act is concerned, it is crystal clear from the record that on the date of said order, no intimation for initiation of proceeding of confiscation from the Collector was received.

8. Before dwelling upon the point, it would be apposite to refer here the relevant portion of Section 47-D of Excise Act:-

"47-D. Bar of jurisdiction of the Court under certain circumstances.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 clause (a) or (b) of sub -section (1) of Section 34 on account of which such seizure has been made, shall not make any order about the disposal, custody etc. of the intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. seized after it has received from the Collector an intimation under clause (a) of sub-section (3) Section 47- A about the initiation of the proceedings for confiscation of seized property."

9. On bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that if the criminal Court has been given intimation as per the provision under Section 47- A(3)(a) about initiation of confiscation proceedings by the Collector regarding confiscation then the criminal Court is ceased to pass any order in the matter because it has no jurisdiction to pass any order for interim custody of vehicle.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2314

4 MCRC-28826-2020

Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, and General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. , (2010) 6 SCC 768, has categorically held that the seized vehicle should not be allowed to remain idle in the custody of the police, as it leads to unnecessary deterioration. The Magistrate is empowered under Section 457 Cr.P.C. to release the same to the rightful owner on proper terms and conditions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Uday Singh , (2020) 12 SCC 733 , reiterated that even during pendency of confiscation proceedings, the vehicle can be released on interim custody to the registered owner upon execution of supurdginama, subject to his undertaking to produce it as and when required.

11. In this regard, judgment of Full Bench of this Court recently decided in the case of Ramlal Jhariya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , passed in WP No.11356/2024, vide order dated 21.4.2025 and the judgment dated 24.04.2025 passed by Single Judge in the case of Manish @ Mahesh Soliya Vs. The State of M.P., passed in MCRC No.15378/2025 are also relevant to refer here. In this case Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, after categorical and detailed discussion, has held that the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act has been declared ultravires, hence the relevant conclusions of the judgement is worth to be quoted here:-

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2314

5 MCRC-28826-2020 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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2314

6 MCRC-28826-2020 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.

98. We having given our conclusions, W.P. No.6542/2025 is disposed of, while the remaining matters be placed before the appropriate Bench for adjudication of the case."

12. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position and the fact that the Collector has already confiscated the said vehicle and the rejection of petitioner's application by the Commissioner cannot be sustained.

13. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 20.03.2020 and 14.10.2019 are hereby set aside . The application filed by the petitioner is allowed.

1 4 . It is directed that the vehicle bearing registration No. MP06-GA-

1 8 3 2 shall be released to the petitioner on furnishing a cash surety of

Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) in the form of fixed deposit in a nationalized bank or Bank Guarantee along with Supurdginama of Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-