Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:448 3 MCRC-21681-2020 Magistrate.

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 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.