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

2022 Supreme(Pat) 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
Rajdev Mukhiya - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration Excise and Prohibition Department and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1205 of 2022
Decided On : 01-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7

Headnote:

Confiscation - Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 - Section 13, 56, 58 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016, including the power of confiscation under Section 56 and the procedure for issuing an order of confiscation under Section 58. The court highlighted the flood of petitions due to non-initiation of confiscation proceedings, lack of conclusion of proceedings within a reasonable time, and non-compliance with court orders. The court issued directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes, and emphasized the importance of cooperation from the parties and the authorities. The court also addressed the issue of delay in confiscatory proceedings and the release of property in the absence of timely conclusion of proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the release of a motorcycle seized in connection with a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016. The petitioner prayed for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a flood of petitions due to non-initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within a reasonable time, and non-compliance with court orders. The court issued directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes, and emphasized the importance of cooperation from the parties and the authorities.

Issues: Non-initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within a reasonable time, lack of compliance with court orders, and the flood of petitions before the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings, cooperation from the parties and authorities, and compliance with court orders. The court also highlighted the release of property in the absence of timely conclusion of proceedings.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes, and the release of property in the absence of timely conclusion of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S. KUMAR, J.

(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice/Hon’ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)

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

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents’ authority to release the Motorcycle bearing Registration No BR22AK0486, Chassis No. MBLJAR037K9A13314, Engine No. JA05EJK9A13425 to the petitioner forthwith, which was seized by the respondent No. 5 in connection with Turkauliya (Banjariya) Police Station Case No 551 of 2021 dated 14-7-2021 instituted for the offences u/s 272, 273 of the I.P.C and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act 2018 Pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, (Excise) Motihari, East Champaran.

(ii) To grant any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled from 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 parti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top