Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badrilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9678
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 9TH OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45255 OF 2025
BADRILAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Prachi Agrawal, advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, public prosecutor for State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, Division Ujjain in Case No.396/Appeal/2024-25 whereby, confiscation order dated 09.07.2024, passed by the Additional District Magistrate Ratlam, District - Ratlam in Case No. 0069/Govansh/2024 was affirmed. The Additional District Magistrate, Ratlam directed confiscation of loading pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.MP 43-G-2827 in exercise of powers under Section 11(5) of Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam.
2. The exposition of the facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition, is as under :-
(A) The police force of P.S. Sailana, District Ratlam(M.P.) intercepted Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 10-04-2026 10:36:09 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9678 one loading pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.MP 43-G-2827 to verify the secret information. The petitioner Badrilal alongwith other accused were found transporting cows progeny in the pickup vehicle in cruel condition for slaughtering. The loading pickup vehicle and five cows progeny were seized from petitioner - Badrilal. The P.S. Sailana, District Ratlam (M.P.) registered FIR at Crime No. 15/2023 for offence punishable under sections 4, 6 and 9 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam and Section 11(d) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act against the petitioner - Badrilal and co-
accused.
(B) The Superintendent of Police submitted a report before the Additional District Magistrate Ratlam. The Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 09.07.2024 passed in Case No.0069/Govansh/2024 ordered confiscation of loading pickup vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 43-G- 2827 in exercise of power under Section 11(5) of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam.
(C) The petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, assailing the confiscation order dated 09.07.2024. The Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division vide impugned order dated 31.7.2025, passed in Case No.396/Appeal/2024-25 affirmed the confiscation order passed by Additional District Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. The present petition is filed assailing the validity of both the orders.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, submits that the Additional District Magistrate has committed an error in directing confiscation of a loading pickup vehicle under Section 11 (5) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam, pending the trial against petitioner/accused Badrilal for offence punishable under Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 10-04-2026 10:36:09 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9678 sections 4, 6 and 9 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sailana, District Ratlam (M.P.). Learned counsel contends that the trial at RCT No. 353/2023 is still pending. Learned counsel further referring to the judgment of Full Bench of the High Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya Vs State of MP and Others reported in 2025(2) M.P.L.J.(Cri.)(F.B.)533 (passed in WP No. 11356/2024), submits that the appeal against the confiscation order was pending at the time of passing of the judgment in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (Supra). Therefore, the law laid down in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (Supra) would apply to the matter in hand. The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error. Learned counsel referred to Para - 97(b) of the judgment of Ramlal Jhariya (Supra) which reads as under :-
97. 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.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the confiscation order passed by the Additional District Magistrate was affirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, therefore, the order has attained finality. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition is meritless.
5. Considered.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
7. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh Court in case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) dealing with the provisions of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam has held as under :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 10-04-2026 10:36:09 4NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9678
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 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 :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 10-04-2026 10:36:09 5NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9678 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.
8. The factual matrix of case in hand is examined in the light of aforestated proposition of law. As informed, the trial of accused/petitioner Badrilal for offence punishable under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and Section 11(d) of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act at RCT No. 353/2023 is still pending, therefore, the Additional District Magistrate was not competent to pass the confiscation order before the conclusion of the criminal trial. The impugned orders suffer from jurisdictional competence in view of the law laid down in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (Supra).
9. In view of above discussion, the impugned order dated 31.7.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, Division Ujjain in Case No.396/Appeal/2024-25 and confiscation order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ratlam, District Ratlam in case No. 0069/Govansh/2024 are set aside.
10. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE BDJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 10-04-2026 10:36:09