Confiscation During Trial Violates Article 19(1)(g) | Vehicle Release Under BNSS : Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment clarifying that confiscation of vehicles during pendency of criminal trials under the MP Excise Act violates Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution. The Court held that only the trial court, not executive authorities, can order confiscation after conviction, thereby protecting property rights during criminal proceedings.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case arose from the seizure of a Bolero vehicle (Registration No. MP-70C-0551) on 01.03.2025 by Excise Sub Inspector Chetan Ved of Circle Sailana. During the search, 324 bulk liters of country-made plain liquor were recovered from the vehicle, which was allegedly being used for illicit liquor transportation. While the vehicle was seized from one Sunil Pargi, the petitioner Kalusingh Pagri was identified as the registered owner.

Procedural History

The case progressed through multiple judicial forums:

• 01.03.2025: FIR registered under Section 34(1)A and 34(2) of the MP Excise Act (Crime No. 530/2025)
• 13.03.2025: Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sailana rejected the petitioner's application under Section 497 and 506 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for interim release of the vehicle
• 04.03.2025: District Magistrate Ratlam initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 47-D of the MP Excise Act
• 26.03.2025: Sessions Judge Ratlam dismissed the criminal revision petition against the Magistrate's order

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought quashing of the lower courts' orders denying interim release of the vehicle, arguing that:

1. The District Magistrate lacked authority to initiate confiscation proceedings during pendency of trial
2. Section 47-A of the MP Excise Act was unconstitutional as it violated Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A
3. No conviction had been recorded, making confiscation premature

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether executive authorities could order confiscation of vehicles during pendency of criminal trials under the MP Excise Act, or whether such power exclusively vested with the trial court after conviction, in light of constitutional protections under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner's counsel contended that:

• Section 47-A of the MP Excise Act was ultra vires as it conferred disproportionate power on executive authorities to confiscate property without trial
• The Full Bench decision in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh had already declared Section 47-A unconstitutional
• The District Magistrate's initiation of confiscation proceedings was without jurisdiction, rendering the lower courts' orders unsustainable
• The vehicle could not be withheld merely on the basis of an intimation letter under Section 47-D when no confiscation order had been passed

For the Respondent/State

The Public Prosecutor argued that:

• The confiscation proceedings were validly initiated under Section 47-D of the MP Excise Act
• The intimation to the trial court created a legal bar on release of the vehicle
• The petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance
• The lower courts had correctly applied the statutory provisions in denying interim release

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a detailed examination of the constitutional validity of Section 47-A of the MP Excise Act and its interplay with the BNSS provisions. Key aspects of the analysis included:

1. Constitutional Proportionality Test: The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which had declared Section 47-A ultra vires for violating Article 19(1)(g) (right to carry on trade) and Article 300-A (right to property). The judgment observed:

"We have also taken note of the position that when the confiscating authority would be the Court trying the offence, then all the facts shall be before the Court at the time of confiscation and the Court can take an appropriate decision whether to pass order for confiscation or not. The same power is given in section 46 and 47 of the Excise Act to the trial Court trying the offence... However, in the present case, what is under challenge is, power given to Executive (and not to a judicial authority i.e. Trial Court) to pass order for confiscation even during pendency of trial, and not opening the defence of lack of knowledge and connivance to the owner of the vehicle. This power, in our considered opinion, does not amount to a valid power within the limits of authority set out under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India."

1. Separation of Powers: The Court emphasized that confiscation powers during trial could not be vested in executive authorities, as this would violate the principle of separation of powers. Only the trial court, after examining all evidence, could determine whether confiscation was warranted.

2. Statutory Interpretation: The Court held that Section 47-D of the MP Excise Act became inoperative where no confiscation order had been passed, as the underlying Section 47-A had been declared unconstitutional. The intimation letter from the District Magistrate could not, therefore, bar the release of the vehicle.

3. BNSS Provisions: The Court directed the trial court to reconsider the petitioner's application under Section 497 and 506 of the BNSS, which govern interim release of property seized during investigation. The Court noted that these provisions must be applied in light of the constitutional protections established in Ramlal Jhariya.

The Verdict

The petition was allowed. The Court set aside the orders dated 13.03.2025 and 26.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sailana, and the Sessions Judge, Ratlam, respectively. The trial court was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for interim release of the vehicle under Section 497 and 506 of the BNSS, in accordance with the law laid down in Ramlal Jhariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Confiscation Powers Restricted to Trial Courts

The judgment reinforces that confiscation of property during criminal trials can only be ordered by the trial court after conviction. Practitioners should:

• Challenge any executive orders of confiscation during trial as ultra vires
• Rely on Ramlal Jhariya to argue that Section 47-A of the MP Excise Act is unconstitutional
• Emphasize that Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A protect property rights during pendency of criminal proceedings

Interim Release Under BNSS

The Court's direction to reconsider the application under Section 497 and 506 of the BNSS highlights the following:

• Section 497 BNSS (release of property seized during investigation) must be interpreted in light of constitutional protections
• Mere initiation of confiscation proceedings by executive authorities does not bar interim release
• Trial courts must independently assess whether continued seizure is justified, regardless of executive intimation

Burden of Proof in Confiscation Cases

The judgment clarifies that:

• The owner of seized property has the right to raise the defence of lack of knowledge or connivance
• The prosecution must establish that the owner was aware of the illegal use of the property
• This burden cannot be shifted to the owner merely because confiscation proceedings have been initiated