Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Heard.

16. The primary issue that arises for consideration in all the cases is that whether during pendency of criminal case before the Court of law, the confiscation of the vehicle used in the offence can be made by parallel proceedings to be conducted under the Excise Act or under the Cow Progeny Act. To appreciate the cases under the M.P. Excise Act, the relevant provisions of M.P. Excise Act,1915 which give power of confiscation of seized intoxicants, articles, implements and vehicles are provided under Section 46, 47, 47-A, 47-B, 47-C and 47-D of the Excise Act.

25. In the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short) there are no parallel proceedings for confiscation vested in the investigating agency or in the authorities of the executive. Only the Court trying offence under the said Act has the power to order confiscation in terms of Section 60 thereof which reads as under:-

48. Recently, in a case involving NDPS Act, the Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 40, has dwelled on the issue of confiscation under the NDPS Act during pendency of criminal case which we will discuss in succeeding paras.

49. Learned counsel for the State had vehemently relied on judgment in the case of Divisional Forest Officer vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao reported in (1985) 4 SCC 573 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has upheld that parallel powers can very well be vested in the officers of the executive to pass orders for confiscation of seized vehicle etc. during pendency of criminal trial and such parallel proceedings cannot be held to be unauthorized in any manner. The said issue is no longer res-integra and we have not also dwelled upon the constitutionality or legality of the provisions from the angle of parallel powers having been vested in the Collector to order confiscation of the vehicle/conveyance alleged to be used in excise offence, but from the angle of limited defences available to owner of the vehicle before such authority of the executive.

(Emphasis supplied)

55. Learned counsel for the State and Shri Amitabh Gupta, Advocate were unable to bring to the notice of this Court any single provision where confiscation can be ordered prior to conviction by carrying out parallel proceedings by an authority of the State (and not criminal Court seized of trial) and the defence of lack of knowledge and connivance is not made available to owner of the vehicle, nor any judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that confiscation can be ordered prior to conviction in any such enactment wherein defence has not been made available to owner of the vehicle in parallel proceedings.