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) 146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR, JJ.
Kajal Devi Wife of Mukesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21119 of 2021
Decided on : 01-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.Vivek Prasad ( Gp7 )

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for expeditious implementation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, particularly in the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Release of Seized Motorcycle - Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, Section 13, 56, 58 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, particularly Section 56 and 58, which deal with the confiscation of items used in the commission of an offence under the Act. The court highlighted the non-initiation of confiscation proceedings and the lack of conclusion within a reasonable time, leading to a flood of petitions. The court issued directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes and emphasized the need for expeditious implementation of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ for the release of a seized motorcycle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The court found that there were numerous petitions due to the non-initiation and delayed conclusion of confiscation proceedings, leading to the need for specific directions to ensure expeditious implementation of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a flood of petitions due to the non-initiation and delayed conclusion of confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. It issued specific directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes to ensure expeditious implementation of the Act.

Issues: Non-initiation and delayed conclusion of confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for expeditious implementation of the Act and issued specific directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes.

Final Decision: The court issued specific directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes to ensure expeditious implementation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

S. KUMAR, J.

The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction particularly in nature of Mandamus for directing the Learned Special Judge, Excise, Muzaffapur, to release the motorcycle TVS APACHE RTR 160 ABS bearing Registration No.BR06 BW 6578, Engine No.CE4CK2601030, Chassis No.MD634Ce41K2C01133 which was illegally seized in Mushari P.S. Case No. 204 of 2020 dated 03.12.2020 registered under sections 272, 273, 34 of Indian Penal Code & 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 & 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of Arms Act for recovery of 6.595 liters foreign liquor. Confiscation proceeding has not yet been initiated in the court of the District Magistrate, Muzaffapur.

2. 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.

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:

“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.”

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:-(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

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