Dharmendra Kumar Tomar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that for cases under the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, Section 47-A conferring authority on the Collector to pass confiscation orders is declared ultra-vires, violating Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution. Consequently, confiscation orders can now only be passed by the Criminal Court trying the offence, in terms of Sections 46 and 47 of the Act. Section 47-D becomes inoperative for cases where confiscation orders have not yet been passed. For cases under the Cow Progeny Act, the Collector/District Magistrate can initiate confiscation proceedings during the pendency of a criminal trial, but no confiscation order can be passed before the conclusion of the trial. Confiscation is permissible only if a conviction is recorded and the involvement of the vehicle and the owner's knowledge/connivance are proved. The Court affirmed that writ petitions are maintainable against confiscation orders passed without jurisdiction, even if alternative remedies exist, citing judgments like Radha Krishan Industries and Whirlpool Corporation. The Court also directed that the order would apply prospectively, with specific conditions for pending, concluded, and challenged cases.

Facts

This judgment concerns multiple writ petitions and a writ appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur. The core issue revolves around the confiscation of 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 trials. In one batch of cases (W.P. No. 11356/2024 and connected matters), the challenge is to the confiscation of vehicles under Section 47(A) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915. In another case (W.P. No. 23359/2024), the challenge pertains to confiscation under the Cow Progeny Act. Divergent views among coordinate benches necessitated a reference to a larger bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether articles or vehicles can be confiscated under Section 47(A) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, during the pendency of a criminal trial initiated against offenders (Question A from W.P. No. 11356/2024)? 2. Whether confiscation proceedings under Section 11(5) of the Cow Progeny Act and Rule 5 of Rules, 2012, can be initiated and prosecuted simultaneously with a criminal trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 2010 (Question 1 from W.P. No. 23359/2024)? 3. Whether the District Magistrate can adjudicate violations of Sections 4, 5, 6, 6A, and 6B of the Cow Progeny Act before the conclusion of a trial by the Judicial Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 2004 (Question 2 from W.P. No. 23359/2024)? 4. Whether writ petitions are maintainable against confiscation orders passed by the Collector/District Magistrate when the authority to pass such orders during the pendency of criminal cases is disputed (Question E from W.P. No. 11356/2024 and Question 3 from W.P. No. 23359/2024)? Petitioner's arguments: Confiscation proceedings cannot run parallel to criminal proceedings, and the Collector/District Magistrate lacks the authority to pass confiscation orders before the conclusion of the criminal trial. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Madhukar Rao vs. State of M.P. and other judgments. They also argued for the maintainability of writ petitions when orders are passed without jurisdiction. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue/State regarding their contentions on the core issues, but the context implies they likely supported the confiscating authorities' power to act during the pendency of trials.