Sardar Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87395
1 WP-29061-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 26 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 29061 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010517232026
SARDAR CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of the confiscation
order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P/3), passed by the respondent
No.2/Upper Collector, District Narsinghpur, in respect of vehicle bearing
registration No. MP-20-DA-0531, seized in connection with Crime No.
931/2024 registered at Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur, for the
offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act,
1915.
2. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the aforesaid
vehicle, as evidenced by the registration certificate filed as Annexure P/1. It
is submitted that the vehicle was seized in connection with the aforesaid
crime, in which three persons, namely, Vijay, Bablu and Shailendra Patel,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87395
2 WP-29061-2026
have been arrayed as accused. The petitioner asserts that he is neither an

accused in the said crime nor has any allegation been levelled against him
regarding his knowledge of, or connivance in, the alleged offence. His
application seeking interim custody of the vehicle was rejected by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, and the Criminal Revision
No.19/2024 preferred against the said rejection was also dismissed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, vide order dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure
P/2). Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing M.Cr.C.
No.4790/2025. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent No.2
passed the impugned confiscation order dated 10.03.2025. Consequently, the
petitioner withdrew the aforesaid petition with liberty to avail the appropriate
remedy, as reflected in the order filed as Annexure P/4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
confiscation order has been passed without impleading the petitioner in the
confiscation proceedings, without issuing any notice to him and without
affording him an opportunity of hearing, despite his being the registered
owner of the vehicle and having already asserted his ownership before the
criminal courts. It is contended that the order adversely affects the petitioner's
proprietary rights and is violative of the principles of natural justice and
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits
that the Full Bench of this Court in Ramlal Jharia Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, W.P. No.11356/2024, decided on 21.04.2025, has declared Section
47-A of the Excise Act unconstitutional and held that confiscation can be
ordered by the criminal court trying the offence in terms of Sections 46 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87395
3 WP-29061-2026
47 of the Act. On these grounds, quashment of the impugned order and

release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner have been sought.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents opposes the petition and supports the impugned order,
contending that the vehicle was seized in connection with an offence under
the Excise Act and that confiscation proceedings were initiated in accordance
with the applicable statutory provisions. It is further submitted that no
interference with the impugned order is warranted in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The learned Government Advocate also contends that the
judgment rendered in Ramlal Jahariya (supra) is not applicable to the facts of
the present case, as the instant petition was neither pending nor had been
instituted on the date of pronouncement of the said judgment, but was filed
subsequently.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. The principal questions that arise for consideration are whether the
judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Ramlal Jahariya
(supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case and, consequently,
whether the confiscation order passed by respondent No. 2 can be sustained
in view of the law laid down therein. Another question that arises for
consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with on
the ground of alleged denial of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. On perusal of the record, it appears that the confiscation order was
passed on 10.03.2025, when M.Cr.C. No. 4790/2025, seeking release of the
vehicle, was pending before this Court. The said petition was subsequently
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87395
4 WP-29061-2026
withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Thus, in view of

the fact that the proceedings seeking release of the vehicle were pending
before this Court on the date of pronouncement of the judgment by the Full
Bench in Ramlal Jahariya (supra), the law laid down therein would be
applicable to the present case.
8. In Ramlal Jharia (supra), the Full Bench, while considering the
statutory scheme governing confiscation under the Excise Act and the
constitutional validity of the relevant provisions, held in paragraph 96 as
follows:

“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.”

9. The aforesaid pronouncement of the Full Bench has a direct
bearing on the controversy involved in the present case. The impugned order
has been passed by the Upper Collector in exercise of the confiscation
jurisdiction under the Excise Act. In view of the declaration of
unconstitutionality of Section 47-A, the authority of the Collector to pass a
confiscation order cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the said
provision. The fact that the impugned order was passed on 10.03.2025, prior
to the Full Bench decision dated 21.04.2025, does not by itself conclude the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87395
5 WP-29061-2026
issue in favour of the respondents. The impugned order is under challenge

before this Court, and its legality has to be examined in the light of the
binding declaration of law. The consequences of the Full Bench decision
must, however, be applied in accordance with the precise scope of the
declaration made therein.
10. Apart from the aforesaid legal position, the petitioner has placed
on record the registration certificate of the vehicle and has specifically
pleaded that he was neither impleaded in the confiscation proceedings nor
afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order affecting his proprietary
rights was passed. His claim of ownership had also been asserted in the
earlier proceedings seeking interim custody of the vehicle. In such
circumstances, an order resulting in deprivation of his property, without
consideration of his claim in accordance with law, cannot be sustained
merely on the ground that the vehicle was allegedly involved in an offence.
The requirement of a fair opportunity assumes particular significance where
the person claiming ownership is not arrayed as an accused in the underlying
criminal case.
11. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Ramlal Jharia
(supra), the impugned confiscation order passed by the respondent No.2
cannot be allowed to operate in the manner contemplated therein. The
petitioner has, therefore, made out a case for interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. It is clarified that the observations made herein
are confined to the validity of the confiscation order and the petitioner's
claim to the vehicle; they shall not be construed as an expression of opinion
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87395
6 WP-29061-2026
on the merits of the criminal prosecution against the accused persons.

12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The confiscation order
dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P/3), passed by the respondent No.2/Upper
Collector, District Narsinghpur, in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.
MP-20-DA-0531, is hereby quashed.
13. The respondents are directed to release the aforesaid vehicle in
favour of the petitioner, being its registered owner, on interim custody
(supurdnama), subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish an appropriate supurdnama and bond to
the satisfaction of the competent criminal court.
(ii) The petitioner shall undertake to produce the vehicle before the
competent court as and when directed.
(iii) The petitioner shall not sell, transfer, alienate, encumber or
otherwise create any third-party interest in the vehicle during the pendency
of the criminal proceedings, without prior permission of the competent court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not change the nature or identification of the
vehicle and shall maintain the vehicle in proper condition so as to ensure its
production before the competent court whenever required.
(v) The release of the vehicle shall be subject to there being no other
lawful restraint, order or proceeding requiring its continued retention.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41