1. This petition under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur District Ujjain in criminal revision No. 17/2025, whereby the revision petition filed by the revisionist/petitioner against the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahidpur, in criminal case no. 125/2025 has been dismissed.

2. As per the case of prosecution, Sub Inspector Anil Bairagi of the police station Jharda District Ujjain intercepted pickup vehicle bearing registration No. MP-09-GG-9589 to verify secret information about transporting of cow progeny on 11.06.2025 near Borkhedi. During search of the vehicle Shankar Singhar driver alongwith two persons were found transporting seven cow progeny in the vehicle. The Police Station - Jharda registered FIR at Crime no. 125/2025 for offence punishable under sections 6a and 9, 6 and 9 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam and section 11(1)(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act and Section 6(a), 10 of MP Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam against Shankar Singhar (driver), Timariya and Nawalsingh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahidpur contends that the Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 497, 503 of the BNSS on the ground the Additional District Magistrate Ujjain has initiated proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle vide intimation letter dated 1.07.2025. The revisional Court erroneously affirmed the order of JMFC, vide impugned order dated 25.08.2025. Learned counsel further referring to the order dated 21/04/2025 passed by the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 11356 of 2024 (Ramlal Jhariya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and the connected matters, contends that the District Magistrate has no authority to pass the order of confiscating the vehicle seized for offence punishable under sections 6 and 9 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam until the accused is convicted after trial by the competent Court of Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the trial in connection with Crime no. 125/2025 at RCT no. 383/2025 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahidpur. No conviction is recorded against accused / petitioner Shankar Singar till date, therefore, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error.

4. Considered. Perused the record.

5. The Full Bench of this Court in case of Ram Lal Jhariya (supra) and the connected matters has held as under :

          85. By carrying out amendment to the said Act vide Notification dated 16.08.2024, proviso has been inserted in Section 11(5) and a new sub-section 11(6) has been inserted whereby the jurisdiction of the Court to make order about disposal or custody of the vehicles and Cow Progeny seized has been excluded once intimation about initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 11(5) is received by the Magistrate.

          86. From a bare perusal of language of Section 11 (5) of the Cow Progeny Act, it is seen that the provision therein is that the District Magistrate shall confiscate the seized vehicles etc. in such manner as may be prescribed. No particular procedure for confiscation proceedings has been laid down in Section 11, nor any specific provision for hearing any person including owner of vehicle has been laid down in the said provision.

          87. Rules are framed by the State Government under the said Act, which are known as M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012. Rule 5 thereof relates to confiscation by the District Magistrate. The only provision as per Rule 5 is as under:-

          "5. Confiscation by District Magistrate :- In case of any violation of section 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B, the police shall be empowered to seize the vehicle, cow progeny and beef, and the District Magistrate shall confiscate such vehicles, cow progeny and beef as per the provisions of section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No.2 of 1974) in following manner :-

          (i) He shall take possession of the vehicle;

          (ii) He shall intimate the Veterinary Department to take in custody of the cow- progeny and beef.

          (iii) The beef of cow-progeny shall be disposed of by the department by such procedure as he deems fit."

          88. The aforesaid Rule 5 also does not relate to any particular procedure to be followed, any particular person to be noticed or a defence to be taken by a person in the confiscation proceedings. The rule only states that the District Magistrate shall confiscate vehicle etc. as per provisions of Section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code. The erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure in Section 100 thereof related to search and seizure and not confiscation. It is really surprising that how the procedure of Section 100 Cr.P.C. can be borrowed for the purpose of confiscation of vehicles and articles, which is totally irrelevant for the said purpose. No doubt search and seizure can take place by following procedure under Section 100, but it is beyond comprehension of this Court that by following the provisions of Section 100 for search and seizure, confiscation can take place by the District Magistrate. Therefore, it is to be held that no procedure for confiscation has been laid down either in the Cow Progeny Act or in the Rules of 2012 framed under the said Act, though only enabling provision for confiscation is there. The burden of proof is on the owner in trial before Court, who may or may not be the owner of vehicle.

          89. Further, as per the provisions of the Cow Progeny Act, confiscation can take place in case of violation of Section 4, which prohibits slaughter of Cow Progeny. Section 5 prohibits possession and transport of beef and Section 6 prohibits transport of Cow Progeny for slaughter. Section 6-A prohibits export of Cow Progeny and grant of permit. Section 6-B prohibits transport of Cow Progeny through the State of Madhya Pradesh and provides for grant of transit permit.

          90. In the aforesaid six provisions for violation of which confiscation can take place, no defence is carved out in the confiscation proceedings that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner of vehicle. The only whisper to be found is in Section 6, which relates to the person transporting cow progeny or causing it to be transported himself or by his agent servant etc. for the purpose of slaughter or with the knowledge and it will be or likely to be slaughter.

          91. No defence seems to be carved out in all the aforesaid provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B that the owner of vehicle can raise a defence that the vehicle was used without his knowledge. In fact, Sections 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B are the criminal provisions and they would not apply to owner of the vehicle, but would apply only where the owner is the transporter also. However, no further defence has been carved out in Section 11(5), which relates to confiscation of vehicle of the owner being able to raise a defence in confiscation proceedings that the vehicle was used for the offence under the act without his knowledge or connivance. Therefore, so far as the rights given to the owners of vehicles are concerned, it appears that the provisions are not different from the provisions of Excise Act discussed above. Only a whisper of knowledge is found in Section 6, which is very ambiguous. The relevant fact is use of the vehicle in a particular manner, and the knowledge of the transporter, without any reference to knowledge of the owner is irrelevant because confiscation hits the owner, and not the transporter nor the supplier.

          92. Very importantly, no power is given to Trial Court under Cow Progeny Act to pass order for confiscation and the only power is given to District Magistrate/Collector. In this view of the matter, it would have been appropriate that a proper procedure for enquiry had been laid down before the District Magistrate/Collector, and the lack of knowledge and connivance of owner/his agent had been engrafted in the said Act or Rules, so that the law would have ensured that the owner stood a proper chance to plead, represent and defend his case. However, the question of constitutionality of provisions of Cow Progeny Act relating to confiscation is neither referred before us, nor prayed in the petition in which reference has been made.

          93. The issue relating to Cow Progeny Act has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Vahab (supra) wherein the Supreme Court reversed the confiscation as the accused had been acquitted in criminal trial. It was held that the order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the truck of appellant therein when he stood acquitted in the criminal prosecution, was held amounting to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300-A. It was held not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that confiscation despite acquittal by criminal court cannot be allowed to stand. The fact of acquittal was held to be a relevant factor in the matter of confiscation of vehicle.

          94. As already discussed above, no defence of lack of knowledge and connivance of the owner has been made available to the owner, nor has any procedure for confiscation been laid down. Therefore, it is held that though the proceedings for confiscation can be initiated and proceeded parallel to 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. We are also fortified in our conclusion by a recent order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1910-1911/2024 (Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan) wherein the Supreme Court held that confiscation under Section 6-A of The Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration of Export) Act 1995 will not be given effect to during pendency of criminal trial.

          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 ultravires 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.

6. Thus, the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held Section 47A of MP Excise Act to be ultra-vires of the Constitution of India.

          But no such direction is passed with reference to Section 11 of Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam. The Full Court has held that the District Magistrate shall be competent to initiate proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle during pendency of the criminal trial. However, no final confiscation order be passed before completion of criminal trial. Section 11(5) and (6) of Govansh Vadh Pratishedh (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam provides as under:-

          (5) Provided that no order of confiscation shall be made under this section unless the Collector issues an intimation in the prescribed format regarding the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the seized conveyance, cow progeny and beef to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence for which such seizure has been made.

          (6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, the Court having jurisdiction to try offences covered by Section 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B on account of which seizure has been made, shall not make any order about the disposal or custody of the conveyance, cow progeny and beef seized after it is received from the Collector an intimation under sub-section (5) above about the initiation of the proceedings for the confiscation of the seized conveyance, cow progeny and beef.

7. Apparently, this provision restrains the Court of Judicial Magistrate from passing any order of release of vehicle once the intimation with regard to initiation of confiscation proceedings by District Magistrate has been received. Since the intimation with regard to initiation of confiscation proceedings was communicated to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Mahidpur, District Ujjain, the trial Court as well as revisional Court committed no error in declining to release the vehicle.

8. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any manifest impropriety much less an illegality. So, no case is made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of The BNSS 2023.

9. Consequently, the present petition being meritless is dismissed.

CC as per rules.