Case No.
Writ Petition No. 11356 of 2024 (with connected matters: Writ Appeal No. 2763 of 2024, Misc. Criminal Case No. 6762 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 18164 o
Bench
Suresh Kumar Kait CJ, Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari J, Vivek Jain J
Acts & Sections
Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 §34(2)
Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 §47-A
Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh… §4
Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh… §5
Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh… §6
Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh… §6A
Also reported in
This judgment disposed of connected matters. The same reasons were delivered in
the following case.
Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Writ Petition No. 6542 of 2025 (with connected matters WP No. 11356/2024, WA No. 2763/2024, MCRC No. 6762/2024, WP No. 18164/2024, WP No. 18492/2024,
Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was constituted to resolve a divergence of opinion among coordinate Single Benches on the question whether the Collector/District Magistrate possesses the authority to confiscate vehicles used in the 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 arose from conflicting lines of decisions, one series following the Supreme Court's ruling in State of M.P. v. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624, holding that no confiscation order could be passed during the pendency of criminal proceedings, while another series of Single Bench decisions took a contrary view.
The batch of petitions also included a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 47-A of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, heard analogously with the main reference. The referred questions encompassed: (i) whether confiscation under Section 47-A of the Excise Act or Section 11(5) of the Cow Progeny Act can be initiated or prosecuted simultaneously with criminal trial; (ii) whether the Collector/District Magistrate can adjudicate violations of the relevant provisions before conclusion of the criminal trial; and (iii) whether writ petitions are maintainable against confiscation orders passed by executive authorities where statutory appellate remedies exist.
The Full Bench took up and decided all connected matters by a common judgment, addressing the scope of executive confiscation powers vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of criminal courts, the binding effect of conflicting coordinate Bench decisions in the absence of a formal reference under High Court Rules, and the maintainability of writ petitions challenging such confiscation orders.
Catchwords:
confiscation of vehicles · pendency of criminal trial · M.P. Excise Act 1915 · Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam 2004 · Collector · District Magistrate · executive confiscation · simultaneous proceedings · constitutional validity · writ petition maintainability · alternate remedy · stare decisis · reference to larger bench · divergence of opinion
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
