Judgment ( 1. ) APPLICANT has preferred this revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. PC feeling aggrieved by judgment passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Cr. A. No. 200/05 on 31-8-2005, whereby and wherein the order passed by JMFC in Cr. C. No. 139/05 on 17-2-2005 directing confiscation of jeep has been affirmed. ( 2. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant Shri S. L. Jain submitted that applicant is the registered owner of jeep bearing No. MP-12c-2828. The said jeep has given by him to one Manish Yadav and was seized by police Depalpur on 15-2-2005. On the allegation of transporting 40 quarters of liquor by this Jeep, by one Manish. The said accused Manish was convicted on admission for commission of offence punishable under Section 34 (1) (a) of the M. P. Excise Act. He has further submitted that the said Manish Yadav sentenced with imprisonment till arising of the Court and Fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. At the time of passing the judgment of conviction against accused Manish order of confiscation of jeep belonging to the present applicant was also passed by learned Magistrate without giving any notice to present applicant and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him as envisaged under Section 47 of the M. P. Excise Act. ( 3. ) LEARNED Government Advocate Shri G. S. Chouhan supported the order passed by learned Magistrate and confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge and argued that as the said Manish Yadav was convicted on his admission of guilt so, no further notice was required to be given to the present applicant particularly when no papers were available in the jeep which was seized by the police showing him registered owner of the vehicle in question. ( 4. ) THE impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge perused and the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for the rival parties considered. Section 47 of the M. P. Excise Act reads as under : Section 47. Order of confiscation. ( 4. ) THE impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge perused and the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for the rival parties considered. Section 47 of the M. P. Excise Act reads as under : Section 47. Order of confiscation. [ (1) Where in any case tried by him the Magistrate, decides that anything is liable to confiscation under Section 46, he shall order confiscation of the same: Provided that where any intimation under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A has been received by the Magistrate, he shall not pass any order in regard to confiscation as aforesaid until the proceedings pending before the Collector under Section 47-A in respect of thing as aforesaid have been disposed of, and if the Collector has ordered confiscation of the same under Sub-section (2) of Section 47-A, the Magistrate shall not pass any order in this regard. ] (2) When an offence under this Act has been committed, but the offender is no known or can not be found, the case shall be enquired into and determined by the Collector, who may order confiscation : Provided that no such order shall be made until the expiration of one month from the date of seizing the thing intended to be confiscated, or without hearing any persons who may claim any right thereto, and the evidence (if any) which he may produce in support of his claim: Provided further that if the thing in question is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the Collector is of opinion that the sale would be for the benefit of its owner, the Collector may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this Sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale . ( 5. ) IT is clear from the bare reading of the section that as per the proviso attached Sub-section (2) of Section 47 no order can be passed by Magistrate unless any person who may claim any right on the property seized is heard and the evidence if any, which he may produce in support of his claim is considered. ( 6. ( 6. ) IN the present case no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded by the learned Magistrate to the present applicant who was claiming that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, which was seized by police. The vehicle was seized by the police on 15-2-2005 and the order of confiscation was passed by learned Magistrate on 17th February, which also shows that provision regarding not passing an order until expiry of a month has also not been followed. ( 7. ) SHRI S. L. Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the vehicle was not liable to be confiscated in view of Section 34 (3) of the M. P. Excise Act as the quantity of the liquor which was seized by the police from this vehicle was less than 50 bulk litres and was only 40 quarters which is about 7. 5 litres. ( 8. ) IT is true that Section 34 (3) of the M. P. Excise Act provides that when an offence covered with Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 34 is committed and the quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeds fifty bulk litres, all intoxicants, articles implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. in respect of or by means of which the offence is committed, shall be liable to be seized and confiscated. This provision also shows that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated only when the quantity of seized liquor exceeds 50 bulk liters, this aspect also required to be considered by learned Court. ( 9. ) CONSIDERING the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for applicant, the order passed by learned Magistrate, and confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, regarding confiscation of the vehicle, is liable to be set aside and matter is required to be remanded back to the Trial Court for notice to the present applicant and for affording him an opportunity of hearing before passing any order of confiscation. In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge and the order of confiscation passed by learned Magistrate are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerning Magistrate for affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and thereafter pass an order according to provisions of law.