ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 9.3.2022 passed in Criminal Revision Case No.16/2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, whereby, the order dated 27.7.2019 passed under Section 47-B of the CG Excise Act, by the Appellate Court of the Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Appeal Case No.R.E.C.-38/2018-19, was affirmed. By way of the aforesaid order dated 27.7.2019, the Appellate Court has affirmed the order dated 16.1.2019 passed by the Collector, Kabirdham, whereby, the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.MP 18GA 3638, has been confiscated. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.12.2017, on the basis of a secret information, Police Station – Piparia, District Kabirdham, intercepted the vehicles i.e. Mahindra Scorpio and Mahindra Pickup bearing registration Nos. CG 04 CR 7000 and MP 18GA 3638 respectively and on search, illicit liquor was found to be kept in the said vehicles. Thereafter, on account of transportation of illicit liquor in the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 18 GA 3638, Crime No.277/2017 was registered for the offence under Sections 34(2), 34 (1) A, 37, 41 of the CG Excise Act. However, the accused persons were acquitted in Criminal Case No.89/18 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kabirdham vide judgment dated 26.2.2021. During pendency of the said criminal proceedings, the Collector vide order dated 16.1.2019 passed the confiscation order and the said order was affirmed by the Appellate Court and consequently, by the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are bad in law. He submits that since the accused persons have already been acquitted of the charges under Section 34(1) of the CG Excise Act, the judgment rendered in the criminal trial should be factored while deciding the confiscation proceeding. He submits that when the accused persons have already been acquitted, deprivation of the property violates the right granted to the accused under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He submits that this proposition was laid down in the matter of Abdul Vahab Vs. State of M.P., 2022 SCC OnLine 262. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Smt. Roop Kumari Sidar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Order dated 24.6.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. He submits that this proposition was laid down in the matter of Abdul Vahab Vs. State of M.P., 2022 SCC OnLine 262. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Smt. Roop Kumari Sidar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Order dated 24.6.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No.221/2016 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court), wherein, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the matter of Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P., 2000 (1) MPLJ (FB) 389, wherein, a principle has been laid down that ‘once criminal case is pending, confiscation proceeding should not be held and finalized’, and the same was also subsequently affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madhukar Rao, 2008 (14) SCC 624 . Therefore, he prays for quashing of the impugned orders and releasing the subject vehicle. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State does not dispute the legal proposition which has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the aforesaid ratio still holds the field. However, he submits that the authorities proceeded in accordance with law, therefore, impugned order(s) does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. In the matter of Abdul Vahab (supra), the effect of order of the acquittal in criminal trial for deciding confiscation proceedings was dealt with and the following was held vide para 23 : “23. ………………………………………………………………… …… But in a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the Criminal Prosecution, the judgment given in the Criminal Trial should be factored in by the District Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding. In the present case, the order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the appellant’s truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A. Therefore, the circumstances here are compelling to conclude that the District Magistrate’s order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements.” 7. Recently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Premsingh Vs. Therefore, the circumstances here are compelling to conclude that the District Magistrate’s order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements.” 7. Recently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Premsingh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.37758/2022, observed the following in para 11 of its judgment : “11. The word “the offence covered by Clause A and B of sub-section 1 of section 34 has been committed” used in sub-section 2 of section 47-A indicates that the order of forfeiture can be passed when the Collector satisfies himself that the offence covered under Clause A or B of sub-section 2 of section 34 has been committed, therefore, forfeiture/confiscation order can be passed only after conviction has been recorded by the trial Court and not before that.” 8. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, taking into consideration the aforesaid principles, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The custody of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 18 GA 3638 be given to the owner of the vehicle after verification by the concerned Collector with the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall furnish the registration papers regarding ownership as well as the current Insurance Policy of the vehicles; (ii) the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Collector for production of the vehicle as and when directed. 9. It is further directed that the order of confiscation of the said vehicle shall be subject to the final outcome of an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal, if any. The Collector shall be free to impose any condition as he may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Before parting with the case, this Court deems it appropriate to request the learned Advocate General to examine the issue involved in the present case and forward the same to the State Government for its consideration regarding release of vehicles, conveyance etc. on payment of penalty, if the vehicle is seized by the Police or Excise Officer under the C.G Excise Act, 1915 and also to incorporate necessary amendment, as has been done in the State of Bihar. on payment of penalty, if the vehicle is seized by the Police or Excise Officer under the C.G Excise Act, 1915 and also to incorporate necessary amendment, as has been done in the State of Bihar. 11. In the matter of Anil Kumar Vs. State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Pat 2900, while dealing with the issue for releasing the vehicle under t he Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Section 56 of the said act dealing with “things liable for confiscation”, learned counsel for the State, during pendency of the writ petition, brought to the notice of the Court that there has been amendment in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 and a new Rule 12(A) has been inserted. The relevant para 23 reads as under:— “23. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that during pendency of writ petition, there has been amendment in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 and a new Rule 12(A) has been inserted which reads as under:— “12. A. Release of Vehicles, Conveyance etc. on payment of Penalty:- (1) If any vehicles, conveyance, vessel, animal etc. has been seized by any police or excise officer under the Act, then in terms of section - 57B(1) of the Act, the Collector or an officer authorized by him upon receipt of an application in Form IV by the owner of the said conveyance or vehicle etc., may release the said conveyance or vehicle upon payment of such penalty as may be ordered by the Collector or the officer authorized by him. Provided, where it is not possible to ascertain the owner of the vehicle or the owner is not coming to claim the vehicle, the Collector or the officer authorized by him, after waiting for 15 days from the date of seizure, shall proceed to confiscate and auction the vehicle as per the provisions of the Act. (2) The penalty shall be 50% of the latest insured value of vehicle/conveyance. The insured value is the value of the vehicle as assessed by the insurance company. (2) The penalty shall be 50% of the latest insured value of vehicle/conveyance. The insured value is the value of the vehicle as assessed by the insurance company. Where, the insured value is not available or the Collector or the officer authorized by him has reason to believe that the vehicle is undervalued, he shall get the valuation done by the District Transport Officer and 50% of that value shall be the amount of penalty. In any case, the Collector shall not wait beyond 15 days from the date of seizure and if during this period, the accused/owner does not pay up the penalty, he shall proceed with the confiscation/auction. (3) Notwithstanding above, if on a report by police officer or excise officer, the Collector or the officer authorized by him is satisfied that releasing the vehicle or conveyance shall not be in the public interest, he shall proceed ahead with the confiscation of the said vehicle or conveyance and its subsequent auction/disposal. (4) Where the conveyance is such that its valuation/insurance is not possible, the Collector or the officer authorized by him shall impose such fine as he deems fit. While imposing such fine, the Collector or the officer authorized by him shall have due regard to the economic status of the individual, nature of his involvement in the crime and the quantum of intoxicant recovered. (5) Such penalty shall be, regardless of the outcome of the trial if any, before the Special Court, non-refundable. (6) The owner of the vehicle/conveyance shall, after the release of the vehicle/conveyance, produce the vehicle/conveyance as and when required by the authorities. [Explanation:- In all pending/ongoing cases of confiscation/auction of vehicles, the Collector or the officer authorized by him may give an opportunity to the existing owner to pay the aforesaid penalty and get the vehicle released. Upon satisfaction about ownership and upon payment of such penalty, the ongoing confiscation/auction proceeding may be dropped and the vehicle released.]” 12. The object behind such amendment is that the State Government by adopting the aforesaid amendment incorporated in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 would be in a position to release the vehicles seized under the Excise Act in an expeditious manner after recovery of the penalty.