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) 300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
Mithun Kumar @ Mithun Kumar Mandal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8838 of 2021
Decided On : 01-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Praveen Kumar, Advocate, Kumar Manish, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for expeditious initiation and conclusion of confiscatory proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018, and the consequences of non-compliance with the Act's provisions.

Headnote:

Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 - Confiscation of Property - Sections 30(1), 32(2) - 56, 58, 92, 93 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018, particularly focusing on the procedure for confiscation of property used in the commission of offences under the Act. The court highlighted the requirement for initiation and conclusion of confiscatory proceedings within a reasonable time, the need for cooperation from the parties, and the consequences of non-compliance with the Act. The court also emphasized the importance of expeditious adjudication of issues and the applicability of the Act's provisions in cases of drunken driving and non-recovery of liquor from the vehicle.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the release of a motorcycle seized in connection with a case registered under sections 30(1), 32(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018. The court observed a pattern of non-compliance with the Act's provisions, leading to a flood of petitions seeking release of seized property. The court issued directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscatory proceedings within specific timeframes and emphasized the need for cooperation from the parties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a consistent failure to initiate and conclude confiscatory proceedings within a reasonable time, leading to a backlog of cases and a burden on the judicial system. The court emphasized the importance of expeditious adjudication and highlighted the consequences of non-compliance with the Act's provisions.

Issues: The issues before the court included the delay in initiating and concluding confiscatory proceedings, lack of cooperation from the parties, and the need for a mechanism to ensure timely implementation of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act's provisions must be implemented expeditiously, and confiscatory proceedings must be initiated and concluded within specific timeframes. The court emphasized the need for cooperation from the parties and highlighted the consequences of non-compliance with the Act.

Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to initiate and conclude confiscatory proceedings within specific timeframes, and emphasized that non-compliance would result in the release of the seized property without further reference to the court. The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to seek remedies as per the law if needed.

JUDGMENT

S. Kumar, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

"That, the present writ application is being filed for the release of Glamour Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH 04U 7644, seized in connection with Dhankund P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021, registered for the offences under sections 30(1), 32(2) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018."

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 not concluded within a reasonable time either on account of inaction on the part of the authority(s) or on account of non-cooperation of the private parties, be it for whatever reason.

10. Resultantly, this Court from time to time has been passing several orders.

11. In CWJC No.3245 of 2017 titled as Ma

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

AI

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