SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Pat) 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
Shambhu Kumar Podar @ Shambhu Kumar Pottadar Son of Khattar Podar @ Khattar Pottadar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Bihar, Prohibition and Excise and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6070 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11

Point of Law : Confiscation of vehicle - Under Section 58 of Act i.e. District Collector - Appropriate authority to positively conclude confiscation proceeding within next thirty days on appearance of petitioner. If for whatever reason, such proceeding cannot be concluded, in that event it shall be open for authority to take such measures, as are permissible in law.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 215 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 272 and 273 - Bihar Prohibition Act 2016 - Sections 30(a), 56 and 58 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - Consumption of any intoxicant or liquor - Penalty imposed - No recovery from vehicle - Whether when petitioner is found or vehicle is found to be used by a person in drunken condition and no liquor is seized from vehicle - Whether provision of Section 56 of Act will apply - 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 - Court was faced with following fact situations - Where despite seizure, no proceedings for confiscation under Section 58 were initiated - Proceedings were initiated but not concluded within a reasonable time parties after obtaining interim relief for release under orders passed in different set of writ petitions - Order of confiscation was neither communicated nor parties made aware of such fact precluding them from filing appeal under Section 92 and Revision under Section 93 of Act proceedings initiated under Section 92/93 were not concluded within a reasonable time either on account of inaction on part of authority(s) or on account of non-cooperation of private parties.

Finding of the Court : Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to make himself available appropriate authority may be in attending facts - Collector of District/Appellate or Revisional Authority - Another officer of his District, he shall fix directing parties to appear before the said officer shall be not exceeding one week he shall inform said authority of fixing of such – Court clarify convenience of parties, specially during time of Pandemic Covid-19 is of prime importance and it shall be open for authority to hear parties with use of technology, i.e. Video Conferencing facility - including District Magistrate and no certified copy of order shall be required to be placed on file of proceedings pending or initiated under Act – Court only hope and expect Authorities under Act shall take appropriate action at earliest and in accordance with law, within time schedule fixed

Result : Petition stands disposed of

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“1. (A)(i) To release the Hero Glamur bearing registration no. BR50S2587, Chesis No. MBLAW155LGJ22220, Engine Number JA37ACLG22588 which has been seized by S.H.O. Andramath Police Station, District-Madhubani in connection with Andhramath P.S. Case No. 141/2020 dt 12-11-2020 for offences under sections 272, 273 of Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition Act 2016 which has been forwarded to the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Madhubani.

(B) To any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. 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 titled as Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar and subsequent order dated 14th January, 2020 passed in CWJC No.17165 of 2019 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.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.

5. 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).

6. 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:

“56. Things liable for confiscation.-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.”

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Consequently, the court was faced with the following fact situations:-

(a) where despite seizure, no proceedings for confiscation under Section 58 were initiated;

(ii) where such proceedings were initiated but not concluded within a reasonable time;

(c) the parties after obtaining interim relief for release of “things” under orders passed in different set of writ petitions, did not participate in the confiscatory proceedings;

(d) where the order of confiscation was neither communicated nor the parties made aware of such fact, thus precluding them from filing appeal under Section 92 and Revision under Section 93 of the Act;

(e) proceedings initiated under Section 92/93 were no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top