Confiscation Under the M.P. Excise Act Lies With the Criminal Court, Not the Collector.

Police registered Crime No. 62/2024 under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, and seized the petitioner’s motorcycle.

Although a charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court, the Collector ordered confiscation of the motorcycle and its sale by auction on 11 June 2024.

The petitioner challenged the confiscation order under Article 226, alleging, among other things, that it was without jurisdiction.

Whether the Collector had authority under Section 47-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act to confiscate the motorcycle while criminal proceedings were pending.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the confiscation order set aside in light of the Full Bench ruling in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of M.P. & Others.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

In Ramlal Jhariya v. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No. 11356/2024 and connected matters, order dated 21 April 2025), the Full Bench declared Section 47-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, conferring confiscation powers on the Collector, ultra vires Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A.

It held that confiscation under the Excise Act may be ordered only by the criminal court under Sections 46 and 47.

The ruling was made prospective, including for concluded cases where a challenge to the confiscation order was pending on the date of the Full Bench decision.

The confiscation order was made by the Collector under Section 47-A, but the Full Bench had held that provision unconstitutional and that confiscation authority under the Excise Act lay with the criminal court.

The petitioner’s challenge to the Collector’s order was pending, bringing the case within the prospective application described by the Full Bench.

The Collector therefore lacked authority to make the impugned confiscation order, and it had to be set aside.

Custody of the motorcycle was left to the trial court to determine according to law; on the petitioner’s application for custody or interim custody, the trial court was directed to decide it in accordance with law.