S.47A Excise Act | Confiscation Has Serious Consequences On Constitutional Rights; Can't Stand After Acquittal: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that once the accused is acquitted by the Competent Court, a confiscation order passed under Section 47A of the MP Excise Act, 1915, by the Collector cannot survive independently. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 219]The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke also emphasised that confiscation of property has serious consequences on the constitutional rights of citizens and therefore, once the accused is acquitted, the continued enforcement of the confiscation order would violate the principles of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution. The bench highlighted; "The acquittal judgment demonstrates that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 34(2) of the Act beyond reasonable doubt. Once the competent criminal court, after full- fledged trial, has found the prosecution case insufficient to warrant conviction, the very substratum on which the confiscation order was founded ceases to exist. The confiscation order, therefore, cannot be permitted to survive independently of the criminal adjudication in the peculiar facts of the present case". A writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Collector of Bhind passed on January 22, 2025, wherein the petitioner's vehicle was confiscated under Section 47A of the MP Excise Act, 1915. The petitioner claimed that the order was arbitrary, unsustainable and without jurisdiction. For context, Section 47A of the Act deals with the confiscation of seized intoxicants, vehicles and materials used in liquor offences exceeding 50 bulk litres. The petitioner claimed that his vehicle was confiscated after a criminal case was registered against him under Section 34(2) of the Act, which outlines the penalty for unlawful manufacturing, transport, possession or sale of large quantities of liquor. The petitioner further argued that he was acquitted of the said criminal case by a competent court after conducting a full-fledged trial, wherein the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the confiscation order could not be sustainable, The counsel for the petitioner argued that the enforcement of the confiscation order after acquittal becomes arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A, which are the right to equality and the property right, respectively.The Government Advocate appearing for the State argued that proceedings under Section 47A of the Act are independent of a criminal trial. The State argued that the Collector, based on the material available, can issue a confiscation order against the vehicle used in the illegal transport of liquor. The State also argued that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically render the confiscation order invalid. The bench noted that the impugned order of confiscation was unsustainable, clarifying that it was based on allegations under Section 34(2) of the Act. However, if the allegations were being examined in a criminal case pending before the competent court, then the alleged offence had not attained finality. The court held that the Collector, while exercising his powers under Section 47A, can proceed to record a finding of commission of an offence and order confiscation, but the Collector himself could not finalise whether the offence was committed or not, as it is not under his jurisdiction but under the jurisdiction of a competent court, which could determine the same after adducing the evidence. Further relying on the petitioner's acquittal, the bench emphasized that the acquittal judgment demonstrates that the prosecution failed to prove charges under Section 34(2) of the Act and therefore, the very basis on which the confiscation order was passed does not exist; thus, the confiscation could be permitted to stand independently. The bench highlighted; "This Court is also of the considered view that confiscation of property is a serious consequence having direct bearing upon the constitutional and proprietary rights of a citizen. Such deprivation must strictly conform to the procedure established by law and cannot rest merely upon allegations which have ultimately failed to withstand judicial scrutiny. Continuance of the impugned order despite the acquittal of the petitioner would amount to sustaining a penal consequence in the absence of a legally established offence, which would be arbitrary and contrary to the principles of fairness embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution of India". Therefore, the bench held that the order of confiscation passed by the Collector of Bhind suffered legal infirmity and is therefore quashed. Case Title: Gaurav Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-1037-2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 219For Petitioner: Advocate Nirmal Sharmafor State: Government Advocate BK TyagiClick here to read/download the Order

S.47A Excise Act | Confiscation Has Serious Consequences On Constitutional Rights; Can't Stand After Acquittal: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

S.47A Excise Act | Confiscation Has Serious Consequences On Constitutional Rights; Can't Stand After Acquittal: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers