Confiscation scheme under excise law upheld, with revisional court retaining incidental power to protect seized property.

Sections 47-A to 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act establish a separate confiscation mechanism with notice, hearing, appeal and revision, and the Collector acts in a quasi-judicial capacity; the provisions were upheld as valid and not inconsistent with Articles 14 or 19(1)(g). The proviso barring the Court of Session from staying a confiscation order during revision was also sustained, but read down so the revisional court retains incidental power to pass interim custody and disposal orders to protect the property pending revision. The challenge was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Sections 47-A to 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 are constitutionally valid. (ii) Whether the proviso to Section 47-C(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which bars the Court of Session from staying the confiscation order during revision, is unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether Sections 47-A to 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 are constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The confiscation scheme creates a separate and distinct proceeding from criminal prosecution, with notice, hearing, appeal and revision. The Collector acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and the power to order confiscation is discretionary, not mandatory. The statutory bar on the criminal court's control over confiscation matters is justified because a special statute may provide a special machinery for seizure and confiscation, and general procedural powers yield to that scheme. The provisions therefore do not offend the guarantees under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Sections 47-A to 47-D are constitutionally valid and are upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Section 47-C(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which bars the Court of Session from staying the confiscation order during revision, is unconstitutional.

Analysis: The restriction on an express stay power is not arbitrary when the revisional court retains incidental and ancillary powers to preserve the property through interim directions for custody and disposal. The revisional jurisdiction under the Code remains available for effective control of the confiscated property, and the statutory bar can be harmonised by reading it down so that the property may be protected pending revision. On that basis, the proviso does not violate Article 14.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 47-C(2) is constitutionally valid as read down to preserve the revisional court's incidental power to pass interim custody and disposal orders.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation provisions were upheld, the challenged restriction on stay power was sustained after reading down, and the writ challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A special confiscation statute creating an independent quasi-judicial confiscation mechanism with notice, hearing, appeal and revision is constitutionally valid, and a restriction on stay power is not arbitrary if the revisional court retains incidental powers to preserve the property through interim custody and disposal orders.

---