Gyan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46790
1 WP-8511-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
st
ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8511 of 2025
GYAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Ojha - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
seeking following reliefs:-
(i) That, this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to issue a
writ of certiorari or directions to the respondents to
produce the entire records pertaining to confiscation
proceedings of the vehicle, i.e. Creta car, bearing
registration No. MP-18C-7603 owned by the petitioner,
so confiscated by the respondents.
(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to quash
the impugned order, Annexure-P/8 and direct the
respondents for release of the vehicle, bearing
registration No.MP-18C-7603 on ‘supurtnama’ of the
petitioner, in the interest of justice;
(iii) That, this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to grant
such other relief/reliefs to the petitioner as deemed just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) That, the cost of the petition may also be
awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. It is argued that a criminal case is pending consideration before the
Trial Court and despite the same, confiscation proceedings were drawn. It is
submitted that the vehicle in question cannot be confiscated during the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 02-07-2026
09:59:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46790
2 WP-8511-2025
pendency of trial as the same is contrary to the Judgement dated 21/04/2025

passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh and others in W.P. No.11356/2024 . It is argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector was having no
jurisdiction to pass such an order regarding confiscation of vehicle in view
of the judgement passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal
Jhariya (supra).
3. Learned State counsel has fairly submits that the matter is squarely
covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ramlal
Jhariya (supra) and the authorities were having no jurisdiction to pass the
confiscation order pending criminal case..
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra)
has considered Section 47-A of the M. P. Excise Act, 1915 and 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 ultra-vires
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 02-07-2026
09:59:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46790
3 WP-8511-2025
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 :-
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

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 02-07-2026
09:59:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46790
4 WP-8511-2025
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."
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well

as in view of the observation made by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) wherein it is held that the Collector was
having no jurisdiction even to initiate the confiscation proceeding under the
Excise Act and to pass an order of confiscation of vehicle till the criminal
proceedings are pending consideration; on both the grounds, the authority
was having no right to confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner. Therefore, the
petition is allowed and the orders impugned are quashed. The petitioner is at
liberty to move an appropriate application regarding Supurdginama of the
vehicle in question before the competent Court.
7. With aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 02-07-2026
09:59:15