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

2022 Supreme(Pat) 202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
Puja Singh W/o Jyoti Kumar and ors. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Excise Department and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2709 of 2022
Decided On : 22-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Kanchan Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.Vivek Prasad (GP 7)

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for timely initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, and the amendment allowing release of vehicles on payment of penalty.

Headnote:

Prohibition & Excise Act - Confiscation Proceedings - Section 13, 56, 58 - The court issued directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within a reasonable time, and clarified the consequences of non-compliance. The court also highlighted the amendment in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, allowing the release of vehicles on payment of penalty.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the release of a seized vehicle in connection with an Excise Case under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016. The court was faced with various situations of non-initiation or delayed conclusion of confiscation proceedings, leading to a flood of petitions before the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes, and highlighted the amendment allowing release of vehicles on payment of penalty. The court expressed concern over the adverse consequences of non-implementation of the Act and directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit outlining the mechanism for timely implementation.

Issues: Non-initiation or delayed conclusion of confiscation proceedings, lack of mechanism for timely implementation of the Act, and adverse consequences of non-implementation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings, and highlighted the amendment allowing release of vehicles on payment of penalty. The court expressed concern over the adverse consequences of non-implementation of the Act and directed the Chief Secretary to outline a mechanism for timely implementation.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes, and the petitioner was given liberty to avail the remedy of the amended provision 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022.

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:

    “That present writ application is being filed for issuance of writ in nature of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction to the direct the respondent authorities to release the seized Hero Scuti , registration no BR31AF-5984 in connection with Sadar P.S Case No 1187/20-21 in favour of the petitioner which has been seized in connection with Excise Case, dated 6/7/20 and registered under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 pending for trial in the court of Session Judge, (Excise). Vaishali.”

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 nei

            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
            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