Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sardar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8267
1 WP-5220-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5220 of 2026
SARDAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harshvardhan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Surendra Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2026, passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Ujjain, Division Ujjain in Case No.309/Appeal/2024-25
whereby, confiscation order dated 26.06.2024, passed by the
Additional District Magistrate, District – Agar Malwa in Case No.01/2023
was affirmed. The Additional District Magistrate, Agar Malwa directed
confiscation of loading pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.MP. 13 GA
2064 in exercise of powers under Section 11(5) of Govansh Vadh Pratishedh
Adhiniyam.
2. The exposition of the facts, in brief, giving rise to the present
petition, is as under :-
( A ) The police force of P.S. Agar, District Agar Malwa(M.P.)
intercepted one loading pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.MP 13 GASignature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 28-03-2026
14:58:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:82672 WP-5220-2026
2064 to verify the secret information. Sardarsingh was found transporting
cow progeny, calf and bull, in the pickup vehicle in cruel condition. The
loading pickup vehicle and six cow progeny were seized from petitioner –
Sardar Singh. The P.S. Agar, District Agar Malwa(M.P.) registered FIR at
Crime No.503/2023 for offence punishable under sections 4, 6 and 9 of the
M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam and Section 11(d) of The
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act against the petitioner – Sardar Singh.
(B) The Superintendent of Police submitted a report before the
District Magistrate, Agar Mlawa. The District Magistrate vide order dated
26.06.2024 passed in Case No.01/2023 ordered confiscation of loading
pickup vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 13 GA 2064 in exercise of
power under Section 11(5) of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh
Adhiniyam(Cow Progeny Act).
(C) The petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner,
Ujjain Division assailing the confiscation order dated 26.06.2024. The
Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division vide impugned order dated
27.01.2026, passed in Case No.309/Appeal/2024-25 affirmed the
confiscation order of District Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. The
present petition is filed assailing the validity of both the orders.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the petition, submits that the District Magistrate has committed
an error in directing confiscation of a loading pickup vehicle under Section
11 (5) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam, pending the trial
against petitioner/accused Sardar Singh for offence punishable under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 28-03-2026
14:58:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8267
3 WP-5220-2026
sections 4, 6 and 9 of the M.P. Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam before
the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar, District Agar Malwa
(M.P.). Learned counsel contends that the trial at RCT No.656/2023 is still
pending. Learned counsel further referring to the judgment of Full Bench of
the High Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya Vs State of MP and Others
reported in 2025(2) M.P.L.J.(Cri.)(F.B.)533 (passed in WP No. 11356/2024),
submits that the appeal against the confiscation order was pending at the time
of passing of the judgment in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (Supra). Therefore,
the law laid down in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (Supra) would apply to the
matter in hand. The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional
error. Learned counsel referred to Para – 97(b) of the judgment of Ramlal
Jhariya (Supra) which reads as under :-
97. b. for the concluded cases, where confiscation order has already been
passed prior to date of this order, this order would apply only if an
appeal/revision/petition under Section 482 CrPC or U/s 528 BNSS/writ petition
or challenge in any manner is pending against confiscation order as on date of
this order.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the
confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate was affirmed in appeal
by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, therefore, the order has attained
finality. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore,
the petition is meritless.
5. Considered.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
7. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh Court in case of Ramlal
Jhariya (supra) dealing with the provisions of M.P. Govansh Vadh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 28-03-2026
14:58:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8267
4 WP-5220-2026
Pretishedh Adhiniyam has held as under :
90. In the aforesaid six provisions for violation of which confiscation can take place, no defence is
carved out in the confiscation proceedings that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or
connivance of the owner of vehicle. The only whisper to be found is in Section 6, which relates to the
person transporting cow progeny or causing it to be transported himself or by his agent servant etc. for
the purpose of slaughter or with the knowledge and it will be or likely to be slaughter.
91. No defence seems to be carved out in all the aforesaid provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-
B that the owner of vehicle can raise a defence that the vehicle was used without his knowledge. In fact,
Sections 4, 5, 6, 6-A and 6-B are the criminal provisions and they would not apply to owner of the
vehicle, but would apply only where the owner is the transporter also. However, no further defence has
been carved out in Section 11(5), which relates to confiscation of vehicle of the owner being able to raise
a defence in confiscation proceedings that the vehicle was used for the offence under the act without his
knowledge or connivance. Therefore, so far as the rights given to the owners of vehicles are concerned, it
appears that the provisions are not different from the provisions of Excise Act discussed above. Only a
whisper of knowledge is found in Section 6, which is very ambiguous. The relevant fact is use of the
vehicle in a particular manner, and the knowledge of the transporter, without any reference to knowledge
of the owner is irrelevant because confiscation hits the owner, and not the transporter nor the supplier.
92. Very importantly, no power is given to trial Court under Cow Progeny Act to pass order for
confiscation and the only power is given to District Magistrate/Collector. In this view of the matter, it
would have been appropriate that a proper procedure for enquiry had been laid down before the District
Magistrate/Collector, and the lack of knowledge and connivance of owner/his agent had been engrafted
in the said Act or Rules, so that the law would have ensured that the owner stood a proper chance to
plead, represent and defend his case. However, the question of constitutionality of provisions of Cow
Progeny Act relating to confiscation is neither referred before us, nor prayed in the petition in which
reference has been made.
93. The issue relating to Cow Progeny Act has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Abdul Vahab (supra) wherein the Supreme Court reversed the confiscation as the accused had
been acquitted in criminal trial. It was held that the order of acquittal was passed as evidence was
missing to connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the truck of appellant therein when
he stood acquitted in the criminal prosecution, was held amounting to arbitrary deprivation of his
property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300-A. It was held not only
arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
confiscation despite acquittal by criminal court cannot be allowed to stand. The fact of acquittal was held
to be a relevant factor in the matter of confiscation of vehicle.
94. As already discussed above, no defence of lack of knowledge and connivance of the owner has
been made available to the owner, nor has any procedure for confiscation been laid down. Therefore, it is
held that though the proceedings for confiscation can be initiated and proceeded parallel to criminal trial,
but no confiscation order can be passed before conclusion of criminal trial and the Collector/District
Magistrate would be empowered to confiscate the vehicle only if conviction is recorded in criminal trial
and involvement of vehicle and knowledge/connivance of the owner is proved in the criminal trial. We
are also fortified in our conclusion by a recent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.
1910-1911/2024 (Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan) wherein the Supreme Court held that confiscation
under Section 6-A of The Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of
Temporary Migration of Export) Act 1995 will not be given effect to during pendency of criminal trial.
96. Therefore, the questions referred to us in the matter of jurisdiction to pass confiscation order during
pendency of criminal proceedings under M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Cow Progeny Act are answered in
the following manner :
B. For cases under Cow Progeny Act, the Collector/District Magistrate shall be competent
to initiate proceedings for confiscation during pendency of criminal trial, but no
confiscation order can be passed before conclusion of criminal trial and theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 28-03-2026
14:58:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:82675 WP-5220-2026
Collector/District Magistrate would be empowered to confiscate the vehicle only if
conviction is recorded in criminal trial and involvement of vehicle and
knowledge/connivance of the owner is proved in the criminal trial.
C. Writ petition is maintainable once an order is passed by the Collector/District
Magistrate confiscating the vehicles by exercising powers under the provisions of M.P.
Excise Act, 1915 and in case of Cow Progeny Act, if it is passed before conclusion of trial,
because it will be without jurisdiction.
8. The factual matrix of case in hand is examined in the light of
aforestated proposition of law. As informed, the trial of accused/petitioner
Sardar Singh for offence punishable under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the M.P.
Govansh Vadh Pretishedh Adhiniyam and Section 11(d) of The Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act at RCT No.No.656/2023 is still pending,
therefore, the District Magistrate was not competent to pass the confiscation
order before the conclusion of the criminal trial. The impugned orders suffers
from jurisdictional competence in view of the law laid down in the case
of Ramlal Jhariya (Supra).
9. In view of above discussion, the impugned order dated 27.01.2026
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, Division Ujjain in Case
No.309/Appeal/2024-25 and confiscation order dated 26.06.2024 passed by
the Additional District Magistrate, District – Agar Malwa in Case
No.01/2023 are set aside.
10. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 28-03-2026
14:58:11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8267
6 WP-5220-2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 28-03-2026
14:58:11