Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrinath Manwade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 2ND OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49250 OF 2024
SHRINATH MANWADE
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Verma advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Rawal, public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
............................................................................................................................
ORDER
1. This petition under section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2024 passed by the Collector, District Rajgadh Biaora relating to motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-39-MT-1007 seized in crime No. 27 of 2021 registered at the Police station Pachore, District Rajgadh for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act.
2. The exposition of facts, giving rise to present petition, is as under:-
A. Sub Inspector Shailesh Chandra of the Police Station, Pachor Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3258 conducted a raid at village Kanjarpura on 16.1.2021 to verify the secret information regarding manufacturing and sale of the country made raw liquor. Accused Kumbhakaran son of Hazrat Kanjar was found manufacturing country made raw liquor. A motorcycle was standing at the hutment of Kumbhakaran. Two plastic canes were tied with the motorcycle. 60 bulk liters of country made raw liquor was recovered from the plastic canes. The illicit liquor and motorcycle were seized from the possession of Kumbhakaran. The Police Station, Pachor registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 34 of the MP Excise Act against Kumbhakaran. The final report was submitted on completion of investigation before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajgadh.
B. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgadh on completion of trial at RCT No. 488/21 (89/2021), (119/2021) acquitted Kumbhakaran S/o Hazrat Kanjar of the charge for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the MP Excise Act vide judgment dated 13.5.2024 passed in RCT No. 488/21 (89/2021; 119/2021).
C. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, District Rajgadh initiated the proceeding for confiscation of the seized vehicle under Section 47 of MP Excise Act on the report of Superintendent of Police, Rajgadh. The District Magistrate vide order dated 2.4.2024 passed in case No. 43 of 2020-21 directed confiscation of the Bajaj CT110 bearing registration No. MP-39-MT-1007 and the raw liquor under Section 47- Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 3
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3258 A (2) of MP Excise Act.
3. The present petition is filed assailing the order dated 2.4.2024 on following grounds:
i) The petitioner was not an accused in the crime as the motorcycle has not used for commission of offence.
ii) The accused Kumbhakaran was acquitted, therefore, the confiscation order suffers from illegality.
iii) The petitioner is poor person. He has left with no means of transport. The auction of confiscated motorcycle will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.
On these, grounds, it is prayed that the impugned confiscation order be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, contends that the District Magistrate committed an error in passing the impugned confiscation order despite acquittal of the accused in the alleged offence. Learned counsel relied on order dated 21.4.2025 passed by the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2025 MPLJ (2) 409 to contend that the provisions contained under Section 47-A of MP Excise Act has been declared ultra-vires and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The District Magistrate cannot confiscate the vehicle before conclusion of trial.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 4NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3258 The impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State contends that the impugned order dated 2.4.2024 was passed before conclusion of the trial and acquittal of the accused vide judgment dated 13.5.2024. Later the accused was acquitted. The petition is meritless.
6. Heard both the parties. Perused the record.
7. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) has held as under :
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 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 :-Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3258 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 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.
8. The impugned order was passed on 2.4.2024, whereas the present petition was filed on 13.11.2024. Therefore, the benefit of law laid down in case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) is not available to the petitioner.
9. Further, Section 47-B of the MP Excise Act, 1915 provides for appeal against the order of confiscation passed under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A. Section 47-C provides for revision before the Court of Sessions against the order of appellate authority passed under sub-section (3) of Section 47-B of the Act. The petitioner, instead of filing any appeal or revision, had approached directly to this Court requesting to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The District Magistrate had passed the impugned order in light of the law i.e. Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3258 Section 47-A (2) of the M P Excise Act. The judgment of acquittal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajgadh (Biaora) was passed on 13.5.2024, after the impugned Order of confiscation dated 02.04.2024. The District Magistrate did not commit any error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
11. Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE BDJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01