MP HC Quashes Collector’s Vehicle Confiscation, Grants Non-Accused Registered Owner Interim Custody Citing Full Bench Ruling Striking Down Excise Act Section 47-A

The petitioner claimed registered ownership of vehicle No. MP-20-DA-0531, seized in connection with a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915.

He was not an accused in that case.

His applications for interim custody before the criminal courts were unsuccessful; while his subsequent petition before the High Court was pending, the Upper Collector ordered confiscation of the vehicle on 10 March 2025.

The petitioner challenged that order, alleging that he had not been impleaded or heard in the confiscation proceedings.

He also relied on the Full Bench decision in Ramlal Jharia v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which had declared Section 47-A unconstitutional.

The confiscation order was made while the petitioner’s M.Cr.C. seeking release of the vehicle was pending; that petition was later withdrawn with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to review the legality of the challenged confiscation order, while Article 300-A protects against deprivation of property except by authority of law.

Under Sections 46 and 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, confiscation may be ordered by the criminal court trying the offence.

The Full Bench in Ramlal Jharia v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 11356/2024, decided 21 April 2025, declared Section 47-A—conferring confiscation power on the Collector—unconstitutional and held that confiscation could thereafter be ordered only by the criminal court under Sections 46 and 47; it also held Section 47-D inoperative where no confiscation order had yet been passed.

The principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to be heard where an order affects a person’s proprietary rights, particularly where the owner is not an accused in the underlying criminal case.

The Court held that the Full Bench ruling applied because proceedings seeking release of the vehicle were pending before the High Court when that ruling was pronounced, notwithstanding their subsequent withdrawal.

Although the Collector’s order pre-dated the Full Bench decision, it remained under challenge, so its legality had to be assessed in light of the binding declaration that Section 47-A was unconstitutional.

The petitioner had produced the vehicle’s registration certificate and specifically asserted that he had neither been made a party to the confiscation proceedings nor given a hearing.

Given the effect on his property and his non-accused status, the order could not be sustained merely because the vehicle was allegedly involved in an offence.

It directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner on interim custody, subject to furnishing a bond and supurdnama, producing the vehicle when required, not creating third-party interests or altering the vehicle, maintaining it in proper condition, and there being no other lawful restraint on its release.

The Court clarified that its observations did not address the merits of the criminal prosecution.