1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

          (i) That, this Hon'ble Court be kind enough to issue a writ of certiorari or directions to the respondents to produce the entire records pertaining to confiscation proceedings of the vehicle, i.e. Creta car, bearing registration No. MP-18C-7603 owned by the petitioner, so confiscated by the respondents.

          (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court be kind enough to quash the impugned order, Annexure-P/8 and direct the respondents for release of the vehicle, bearing registration No.MP-18C-7603 on 'supurtnama' of the petitioner, in the interest of justice;

          (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court be kind enough to grant such other relief/reliefs to the petitioner as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

          (iv) That, the cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

2. It is argued that a criminal case is pending consideration before the Trial Court and despite the same, confiscation proceedings were drawn. It is submitted that the vehicle in question cannot be confiscated during the pendency of trial as the same is contrary to the Judgement dated 21/04/2025 passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others in W.P. No.11356/2024 . It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector was having no jurisdiction to pass such an order regarding confiscation of vehicle in view of the judgement passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra).

3. Learned State counsel has fairly submits that the matter is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) and the authorities were having no jurisdiction to pass the confiscation order pending criminal case..

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) has considered Section 47-A of the M. P. Excise Act, 1915 and has held as under:-

          "96. Therefore, the questions referred to us in the matter of jurisdiction to pass confiscation order during pendency of criminal proceedings under M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Cow Progeny Act are answered in the following manner :

          A. Section 47-A of M.P. Excise Act conferring authority on the Collector to pass order for confiscation is declared ultra-vires being disproportionately violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, question of confiscation by the Collector during pendency of criminal trial no longer survives in the matter, as order for confiscation can now be passed only by the Criminal Court trying the offence in terms of sections 46 and 47 thereof. As a necessary consequence thereto, Section 47-D would become inoperative in all cases where confiscation orders have not been passed as yet, having rendered superfluous.

          B. For cases under Cow Progeny Act, the Collector/District Magistrate shall be competent to initiate proceedings for confiscation during pendency of criminal trial, but no confiscation order can be passed before conclusion of criminal trial and the Collector/District Magistrate would be empowered to confiscate the vehicle only if conviction is recorded in criminal trial and involvement of vehicle and knowledge/connivance of the owner is proved in the criminal trial.

          C. Writ petition is maintainable once an order is passed by the Collector/District Magistrate confiscating the vehicles by exercising powers under the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and in case of Cow Progeny Act, if it is passed before conclusion of trial, because it will be without jurisdiction.

          97. As we have held Section 47-A of the M.P. Excise Act to be ultra-vires of Constitution of India, and a number of cases must have been decided by now since the provision has been in existence, therefore, to avoid any chaos and needless heavy burden on State machinery and exchequer, we direct that this order would be applicable only prospectively in the following manner :-

          a. for those pending cases where confiscation order has not yet been passed by the Collector till date of this order, this order will be applicable,

          b. for the concluded cases where confiscation order has already been passed prior to date of this order, this order would apply only if an appeal/revision/petition under Section 482 CrPC or U/s 528 BNSS/writ petition or challenge in any manner is pending against confiscation order as on date of this order.

          c. where either (a) the confiscation order or (b) order in appeal has already been passed prior to date of this order, the benefit of this order will be applicable only if statutory limitation for challenging the same has not expired on date of this order and if (c) order in Revision has been passed less than three months prior to date of this order, then also, benefit of this order will apply while making challenge before the High Court in Writ petition/Section 482 CrPC or Sec. 528 BNSS.

          d. where the confiscation order has already been passed and it has not been challenged, or if challenged, the challenge has failed and not pending as on today and in case of confiscation order or appellate order, limitation to challenge the same has expired, or in case of Revisional order, same has been passed more than three months prior to date of this order and not put to challenge till today, confiscations in those cases will stand closed and shall not be re-opened in any manner for any purpose whatsoever for taking benefit of this order."

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the observation made by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) wherein it is held that the Collector was having no jurisdiction even to initiate the confiscation proceeding under the Excise Act and to pass an order of confiscation of vehicle till the criminal proceedings are pending consideration; on both the grounds, the authority was having no right to confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the orders impugned are quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application regarding Supurdginama of the vehicle in question before the competent Court.

7. With aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.