Under the M.P. Excise Act, only the criminal court may order confiscation; the Collector cannot.

A criminal case was pending against the petitioner when the Collector passed an order dated 23 October 2024 confiscating his vehicle in Criminal Case No. 68/Excise/2024.

The petitioner challenged the confiscation order under Article 226, relying on the Madhya Pradesh High Court Full Bench decision in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.

The State conceded that the matter was covered by that decision.

Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to confiscate the petitioner’s vehicle under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act while the criminal case was pending

Whether the confiscation order dated 23 October 2024 should be quashed and the vehicle released

Section 47-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, which empowered the Collector to order confiscation, was declared ultra vires Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution by the Full Bench in Ramlal Jhariya.

The Full Bench held that, under the Excise Act, confiscation could be ordered only by the criminal court trying the offence, in accordance with Sections 46 and 47; Section 47-D would consequently be inoperative in cases where no confiscation order had yet been passed.

It also held that a confiscation order passed by the Collector under the Excise Act could be challenged by writ petition.

The confiscation order was made by the Collector under the Excise Act while the criminal case remained pending.

Applying the Full Bench’s ruling that Section 47-A was unconstitutional and that confiscation under the Act could be ordered only by the criminal court, the Court concluded that the authority lacked jurisdiction to confiscate the vehicle.

The State’s concession that the case was covered by Ramlal Jhariya supported that conclusion.

The petition was disposed of.