Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed in Criminal Revision No.33/2022 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kawardha, Distt -Kabirdham (CG) affirmed the order of the Excise Commissioner, Raipur dated 18.11.2022 passed in Appeal Case No. REC -09/2022-23 by which learned Commissioner has affirmed the order of the Collector/District Magistrate dated 05.04.2022, whereby vehicle of the petitioner has been confiscated under Section 47-B read with Section 62(2) (c) under the Chhattisgarh (Amendment) Excise Act , (for short, ‘Excise Act’). 2. As per prosecution story, on 30.04.2021, the Excise Sub-Inspector during checking at Chilpi has intercepted the vehicle Mahendra bolero Pickup bearing No.CG-07-BC-8006 in which the accused persons namely Sumit Soni and Ravi Sinha were traveling. During search, 07 liter illegal country made liquor has been seized from the said vehicle. Based upon recovery, offence/crime for offence under Section 34(1) A & 34 (2) of Excise Act has been registered against them. Vehicle in question has been seized. Necessary inquiry has been initiated ie search Panchnama enquiry, seizure Panchnama. Vide memo dated 30.04.2021, case was forwarded to the District Excise Officer for initiation of confiscation proceeding u/s 47 of the Excise Act. After completion of investigating, charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons for offence u/s 34(1)(A), 34(2), 36, 59(A) of the Excise Act. Respondent No.2/District Magistrate has initiated the proceeding for confiscation and issued notice to the petitioner for his appearance. Statements of the witnesses have been recorded. During pendency of the proceeding, on 12.10.2021 respondent No.2 has consider the application for Supurdnama and as an interim measures, the alleged seized vehicle has been released on Supurdnama. On appreciation of statements of witnesses (Sudhir Arora, Krishna Dhurve and Nageshraj) and going through entire documentary records, respondent no.2/District Magistrate vide order dated 05.04.2022 has confiscated the seized vehicle of the petitioner holding that alleged seized vehicle carrying two bags (containing 07 liters) illegal country made liquor. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Excise Commissioner, Raipur and vide order dated 18.11.2022 the learned Commissioner has affirmed the order of respondent No.2 relying upon the statement of the investigating officer. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Excise Commissioner, Raipur and vide order dated 18.11.2022 the learned Commissioner has affirmed the order of respondent No.2 relying upon the statement of the investigating officer. Being aggrieved by order of Excise Commissioner, Raipur, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before the Additional Session Judge, Kawardha and on 15.02.2023 the learned Revisional Court has rejected/dismissed the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the orders of respondent No.2/District Magistrate and the Excise Commissioner holding that the authority have taken action under the provisions of Excise Act. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2, without considering the material/evidence and provisions contained in Section 47(A) of the Excise Act, merely relying upon the statement of investigating officer, has issued the confiscation order which is not sustainable under the eye of law. The learned Courts below have failed to consider the fact that criminal proceeding in Criminal case No.1271/2021 is still pending before the trial Court, in which, the witnesses have been examined but no such final conclusion/findings have been given, therefore, unless and until the learned trial Court not come to conclusion that the prosecution has proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt, the respondent-authorities without final conclusion of the competent jurisdiction of the Court declaring the involvement in alleged offence is perverse, illegal and contrary to provisions of the law. The vehicle in question has been seized in instance and possession of Sumit Soni and Ravi Sinha, which has been prime suspect and responsible to explain regarding the alleged liquor in confiscated vehicle, but the respondent No.2 while initiating the proceeding no such notice under Sub-section 3 of Section 47(A) of the Excise Act has been issued. The seizure witnesses namely Krishna Dhurve and Udit Arora does not support the confiscation of alleged liquor in the possession of alleged vehicle. The vehicle in question is lying before the police authority since 30.04.2021 and with the passage of time the condition of the vehicle would deteriorate. Hence, it is prayed that impugned orders be set aside and vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner. 4. The vehicle in question is lying before the police authority since 30.04.2021 and with the passage of time the condition of the vehicle would deteriorate. Hence, it is prayed that impugned orders be set aside and vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and submit that on appreciation of evidence/material available, learned Session Court has rightly passed the impugned order (Annexure P-5) and affirmed the orders of the learned District Magistrate and learned Excise Commissioner dated 18.11.2022 & 05.04.2022 (Annexure P-4 & P-3), hence, no interference is required by this Court. 5. Hear learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence/material available including the impugned order. 6. Perusal of records would show that petitioner is not accused in this case before the trial Court and after trial of the case, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons namely Sumit Soni and Ravi Sinha from the charges levelled against them vide order dated 27.08.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.1271/2021. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Abdul Wahab versus State of Madhya Pradesh ( CRA No.340/2022 ) decided on 04.03.2022 has observed thus: “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, when the accused involved in Excise Act were acquitted, the confiscation of the vehicle involved in the said offence, amounts to depriving the petitioner of his property rights and is violative of rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution. 8. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the parties, the fact that petitioner is not accused in this case and trial Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 has acquitted the accused person of this case, further considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Abdul Wahab (supra), I am inclined to allow the instant petition. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Session Court, affirming the orders dated 18.11.2022 & 05.04.2022, is hereby set- aside. The vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith. CC as per rules.