Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1246 (MP)

Pappu v. State of M. P.

2020-12-02

VIVEK RUSIA

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Indore whereby the vehicle MP-45-BB-1454 has been confiscated for the purpose of auction in exercise of the power under section 47-A(3) of the Act. 2. Facts of the case in short are as under:- 3. The petitioner purchased the aforesaid vehicle by way of finance from petitioner No.2. the vehicle was found involved in transportation of illegal liquor in violation of the provisions of M.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, the FIR was registered against the petitioner No.1 under sections 34(2) and 36 of the M.P. Excise Act and the vehicle was seized. The petitioner was sent to the judicial custody on 12.4.2018. The Petitioner face the trial under sections 34(2) and 36 of the M.P. Excise Act and vide judgment dated 17.7.2019, the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges and released from the jail. During entire trial, the petitioner was in jail. The Collector, Jhabua issued a show-cause notice dated 8.5.2018 to the petitioner as to why the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-45-BB-1454 may not be put for acution and 75 boxes of black fort beer valued at Rs.585. 4. As per the proceeding of confiscation pending before the Collector, a notice was served upon the petitioner and even after service, the petitioner could not appear before the Collector. Accordingly, vide order dated 16.8.2018, the Collector has passed the order of confiscation and put the vehicle for auction. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not given any proper opportunity of hearing by the Collector before passing the impugned order. During the proceeding before the Collector, the petitioner was in jail, therefore, he could not appear and has wrongly been treated as ex-parte. He further submitted that now, he has been acquitted from all the charges under sections 34(2) and 36 of the M.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. Counsel for the State filed the reply by submitting that the notice was duly served to the residence of the petitioner and nobody was authorized by the petitioner to appear before the Collector in the confiscation proceeding. Therefore, the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. Counsel for the State filed the reply by submitting that the notice was duly served to the residence of the petitioner and nobody was authorized by the petitioner to appear before the Collector in the confiscation proceeding. She further submits that criminal trial and confiscation proceeding are different proceeding and even after acquittal, the vehicle was found to be involved in the transportation of illegal liquor and the same is liable to be confiscated. She further submits that the petitioner is having remedy of appeal against the order of confiscation under section 47(b) of the Act, hence, the petition is liable to the dismissed. 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was financed by petitioner No.2 and since the petitioner was in jail, therefore, he could not pay the installment to petitioner No.2 and after handing over the vehicle, he will lie the vehicle and pay the installment to petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.2, being a financer has also assailing the impugned order because not notice was served to the financer petitioner No.2 also. 8. It is evident from the judgment passed by the District Magistrate that the petitioner was in jail through out the trial and he was directed to be released on 17.7.2019. The Collector in its order has observed that despite notice, the petitioner did not appear before him and accordingly proceeded ex-parte. The facts remained that during confiscation proceeding, the petitioner was in jail, therefore, it was not possible for him to contest the confiscation proceeding, hence, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Collector concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. 9. The Collector is also directed to consider the acquittal of the petitioner and shall decided the matter afresh within 30 days from production of certified copy of this order. 10. Petitioner No.2 is at liberty to appear before the Collector, Jhabua. 11.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Sachin Parmar for petitioner; Ms. Geetanjali Chaurasiya for respondent/State.