Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ikrar Mohammad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:448
1 MCRC-21681-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21681 of 2020
IKRAR MOHAMMAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
None for the applicant.
Shri Atul Sharma - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Bhind District Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 51/2020, whereby the revision petition filed by the revisionist/petitioner against the order dated 26.04.2020 passed in criminal case no. 354/2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind has been dismissed.
2. As per the case of prosecution, on 08-03-2020 at about 02:00 p.m., the Station House Officer of Police Station City Kotwali, Udaybhan Singh, acting on information received from an informer, reached the Bamba Pulia on Ater Road along with police force, where, as informed by the informer, after some time a Bolero vehicle bearing registration number MP-07-CC- 7140 arrived from the side of Agrawal Colony, which was stopped and checked; upon enquiring from the driver about his name and address, he Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/9/2026 5:54:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:448 2 MCRC-21681-2020 disclosed his name as Krishnapratap Gaur, son of Devendra Gaur, resident of Purani Basti, Bhind, while the person seated beside the driver disclosed his name as Harshvardhan Singh and the person seated on the rear seat disclosed his name as Amar Pratap Singh, and on inspection of the vehicle, 23 cardboard boxes were found placed on the rear and middle seats, each box upon being opened containing 50-50 quarters, totaling 1,150 plastic quarters of plain liquor, and when the accused were asked to produce a valid license for transportation and sale of liquor, they failed to do so, whereupon all three persons were arrested and the liquor along with the Bolero vehicle was seized from their possession; thereafter, the application submitted for release of the said Bolero vehicle on supurdgi (interim custody) was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 26.04.2020. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision bearing No.51/2020 which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.06.2020. Assailing the said order, the present petition has been preferred.
3. The presnet petition has been filed on the ground that learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind has rejected criminal revision filed by the petitioner for the reason that District Magistrate Bhind has given intimation regarding initiation of proceeding for confiscation of vehile i.e. Bolero seized in crime No. 123/2020, therefore, in view of Section 47-D of MP Excise Act, the order for interim custody of the vehicle cannot be passed. The District Magistrate has no authority to pass the order of confiscating the vehicle seized for offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the MP Excise Act, until the accused is convicted after trial by the competent Court of Judicial Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/9/2026 5:54:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:448 3 MCRC-21681-2020 Magistrate.
4. Considered. Perused the record.
5. The Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 21/04/2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 11356 of 2024 (Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and the connected matters has held as under :
67. We, when test the impugned Section 47-A on the touchstone of principle of proportionality, see that the social and public interest projected before us is to carve out a preventive and deterrent measure to curb illegal smuggling of liquor and menace of spurious liquor. There is no general prohibition on liquor in Madhya Pradesh, it being a obnoxious trade carried out by the State under authority and license granted by the State to its contractors at regulated prices and unlicensed liquor amounts to loss of revenue to State apart from harming the society inasmuch supply becomes unregulated or at extreme end, there may be grave cases of spurious liquor or one unfit for human consumption, for which different provisions are incorporated in Excise Act, inviting very heavy penalties and sentences. However, as already noted by us above, though technically and theoretically the provisions of Excise Act do not provide for automatic vesting of seized property in the State and a confiscation order is required to be passed but by not giving the owner right to raise defence of vehicle being used without his knowledge or connivance and he and his agents having taken due care and precautions before the vehicle was used in such manner, then the provisions of hearing and adjudication by the Collector even before trial is concluded by the Court, are mere formality and are not real provisions but are only cosmetic provisions.
68. We have also taken note of the position that when the confiscating authority would be the Court trying the offence, then all the facts shall be before the Court at the time of confiscation and the Court can take an appropriate decision whether to pass order for confiscation or not. The same power is given in section 46 and 47 of the Excise Act to the trial Court trying the offence, and though defence of lack of knowledge and connivance is not given, but when the Court would have tried the offence, it would have all the facts before it, and can pass an appropriate order for confiscation or otherwise. That power would be proportionate and reasonable. However, in the present case, what is under challenge is, power given to Executive (and 49 not to a judicial authority i.e. Trial Court) to pass order for confiscation even during pendency of trial, and not opening the defence of lack of knowledge and connivance to the owner of the vehicle. This power, in our considered opinion, does not amount to a valid power within the limits of authority set out under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/9/2026 5:54:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:448 4 MCRC-21681-2020 of India, and amounts to giving away a disproportionate power to the Executive wing of the State, violating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) and Constitutional right, conferred by Article 300-A, and is therefore, liable to be interfered by this Court. It being a disproportionate legislation violating Constitutional provisions, Section 47-A of the M.P. Excise Act 1915 deserves to be and is hereby declared ultra-vires Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 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.
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.
6. The learned revisional Court considered the provisions contained under Section 47-D of MP Excise Act to conclude that once the Collector on initiation of confiscation proceeding gives intimation to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, the Judicial Magistrate cannot release the vehicle which is subject matter of confiscation proceeding. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) held that Section 49-A of MP Excise Act conferring authority on the Collector to pass order for confiscation is ultra-vires. The Collector cannot pass an order of confiscation during pendency of the criminal trial. The order for confiscation can only be passed by the criminal Court trying the offence in terms of Section 46 and 47 of the Act and Section 47-D of the Act would become inoperative where confiscation orders have not been passed. Therefore, learned revisional Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/9/2026 5:54:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:448 5 MCRC-21681-2020 committed an error in rejecting the revision for interim release of the vehicle merely on the ground that District Magistrate has given intimation under Section 47-D of the MP Excise Act.
7. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.04.2020 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 51/2020 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent court to decide it afresh in the light of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ramlal Jhariya (supra).
8. Present petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
9. All the pending IAs stand disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/9/2026 5:54:26 PM