Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Also reported in

This judgment disposed of connected matters. The same reasons were delivered in the following case.

Ramlal Jhariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was constituted to resolve a reference arising from conflicting views of coordinate Single Benches on whether the Collector/District Magistrate has authority to pass an order of confiscation of vehicles used in commission of offences under the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and the Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 during the pendency of criminal trial before a Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Court. The reference in WP No. 11356/2024 raised five questions including the applicability of the Supreme Court's dictum in State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624, whether confiscation proceedings under Section 47-A can run parallel to criminal proceedings, and the maintainability of writ petitions against confiscation orders. The connected WP No. 23359/2024 raised analogous questions under the Cow Progeny Act, 2004, including whether the District Magistrate can adjudicate violations of Sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B before conclusion of trial, and whether writ jurisdiction is available despite statutory remedies of appeal and revision.

The constitutional validity of Section 47-A of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 was also challenged in WP No. 6542/2025 and heard analogously. The divergence among Single Benches necessitated reference to a larger Bench: one line of judgments held, following Madhukar Rao, that no confiscation order can be passed during pendency of criminal trial, while another line permitted parallel confiscation proceedings. The Full Bench took up all connected matters together since identical questions of law arose in the excise and cow progeny batches.

The judgment (authored by Vivek Jain J) proceeded to authoritatively settle the referred questions concerning the jurisdiction of executive confiscating authorities vis-à-vis pending criminal proceedings, the doctrine of stare decisis in the context of conflicting coordinate Bench decisions, the procedural obligation to refer conflicting views under High Court Rules 2008, and the scope of writ jurisdiction where statutory alternative remedies exist.

Catchwords: confiscation of vehicles · pendency of criminal trial · M.P. Excise Act 1915 · Section 47-A · Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam 2004 · Cow Progeny Act · District Magistrate · Collector · jurisdiction · parallel proceedings · Madhukar Rao · writ jurisdiction · alternative remedy · stare decisis · conflicting judgments · constitutional validity · reference to larger bench · excise offences