Collector lacks jurisdiction to confiscate vehicles under M.P. Excise Act during pendency of criminal trial.

The petitioner, Gyan Singh, owned a Creta car (Registration No. MP-18C-7603) which was confiscated by the respondent authorities under the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, during the pendency of a criminal trial.

The petitioner challenged the confiscation order (Annexure-P/8) through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order while the criminal case was still pending before the Trial Court.

1. Whether the Collector has the jurisdiction to order the confiscation of a vehicle under the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, during the pendency of a criminal trial.

2. Whether the impugned confiscation order is sustainable in light of the Full Bench decision in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of M.P.

The court applied the precedent established by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No. 11356/2024), which declared Section 47-A of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, ultra-vires of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The rule establishes that the power to confiscate property involved in an excise offence désormais vests exclusively with the Criminal Court trying the offence under Sections 46 and 47, rendering Section 47-D inoperative for pending cases.

The court noted that the criminal trial involving the subject vehicle was still pending.

Applying the Ramlal Jhariya precedent, the court observed that Section 47-A—which previously empowered the Collector to confiscate vehicles—had been struck down as unconstitutional.

This means the Collector was stripped of jurisdiction to initiate or finalize confiscation proceedings during a trial.

The State Counsel conceded that the matter was squarely covered by the aforementioned Full Bench judgment.

Consequently, since the order was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and while the trial was ongoing, the confiscation was deemed legally unsustainable.

The court held that the authority had no right to confiscate the vehicle while criminal proceedings were pending.

The petitioner was granted liberty to move an application for supurdginama (interim release/custody) of the vehicle before the competent Trial Court.