IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah S/o Narayan Sah - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2050 of 2020
Decided On : 08-07-2020
Bihar Prohibition and Exicse Act, 2016 – Sections 30/30(a) 56 and 58 – Confiscation proceeding – petitioner praying release of his Motorcycle – directions issued for initiation/conclusion of all proceedings u/s 58 within a period of ninety days from the date of appearance of the parties – appeal/revision, if any also to be decided within a period of thirty days from the date of initiation, failing which the "things" (Vehicle/property/ etc.) to be deemed to have been released – limitation not to come in the way of filing appeal provision – petition disposed of. (Para 19 to 25)
CWJC 20598/19 dt/- 9.1.20, CWJC 17165/19 dt/- 14-1.20, CWJC 3245/17 dt/ – 18.1.2002, CWJC 5049/18, CWJC 15003/2019, CWJC 6148/20 dt/-4.6.20.—Referred.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Karol, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition be disposed of in terms of order dated 9th January, 2020 passed in CWJC No. 20598 of 2019, Reported in 2020 (3) PLJR 926 titled as Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar and subsequent order dated 14th January, 2020 passed in CWJC No.17165 of 2019, Reported in 2020 (3) PLJR 931 titled as Umesh Sah Versus the State of Bihar & Ors. and order dated 29.01.2020 passed in CWJC No.2050 of 2020 titled as Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah, Reported in 2020 (3) PLJR 935.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.
4. The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibits the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation, possession, sale, purchase and consumption of any intoxicant or liquor, unless so allowed in terms of the Act. (Section 13).
5. In addition to the penalty imposed for committing such an offence, Section 56 of the Act lays down the procedure for confiscation of “things” used for in the commission of such an offence. The said Section reads as under:
Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following things shall be liable to confiscation, namely –
(a) Any intoxicant, liquor, material, still, utensil, implement, apparatus in respect of or by means of which such offence has been committed;
(b) any intoxicant or liquor unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, sold or brought along with or in addition to, any intoxicant, liable to confiscation under clause (a);
(c) any receptacle, package, or covering in which anything liable to confiscation under clause (a) or clause (b), is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacle, package or covering;
(d) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for carrying the same.
(e) Any premises or part thereof that may have been used for storing or manufacturing any liquor or intoxicant or for committing any other offence under this Act.
Explanation.-The word “premises” include the immovable structure, all moveable items within the structure and the land on which the premises is situated.”
6. Under section 58 power to issue an order of confiscation vests with the District Collector/Authorized officer, who upon receipt of the report of the seizing officer detaining such property (“things”) is required to pass an order.
7. This Court has been flooded with several petitions solely on account of non-initiation of such proceedings of confiscation or passing of illegal orders with respect thereto. Also, on account of lack of parties pursing the remedies so provided under the Act.
8. Consequently, the court was faced with the following fact situations:-
Rajesh Kumar Pandit @ Rajesh Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.