Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, CJ. and MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
CWJC No.14791 of 2021
(18.4.2023)
Ram Babu Ray ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 – Sections 30(a), 56 and 58 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 414, 411 and 412 – Release of confiscated vehicle – Recovery of illicit liquor – Though statute under which confiscation has been done, does not offer any quantum based relief, this Court would consider it worthwhile to also take judicial notice of fact that alleged recovery of illicit liquor from petitioner's vehicle is of a minuscule quantity of 475 ml. – Recovery is preceded by alleged forcible taking away of vehicle from Petrol Pump in the incident – Fact that petitioner's vehicle was looted stands specifically corroborated by prosecution case – Requirement of natural justice is implicit in the Act – Collector is required to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to person concerned – Requirement of hearing implies giving due consideration to hearing which can only be achieved by passing a reasoned and speaking order – Resultant order of confiscating authority may, or may not necessarily in all cases lead to an order of confiscation – Order of confiscation shows no consideration of petitioner's case – It is also without assigning any reasons with reference to any material in support of decision – Order is clearly perverse on face of petitioner – It is also contrary to procedural requirements contained in Sections 56 and 58 – Revision order is required to be passed within 30 days from date of appearance of affected party that also by a reasoned order – Time stipulated has apparently been breached by Revisional Authority as order has been passed about three months after revision was filed before Revisional Authority – Impugned orders set aside – Writ application allowed. (Paras 13, 20, 21, 23, 27, 30, 31 and 32)
Constitution of India – Article 226 – While reviewing decision of a quasi-judicial authority, Court confines itself to correctness of decision making process and not decision itself – Such law, however, is with inherent exceptions, such as, when authority acts in abuse of power, in violation of principle of natural justice, as also when order is without jurisdiction. (Para 24)
Madhuresh Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.
2. The petitioner is concerned with release of his Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-06-PD- 9548, Chassis No. MA1TA2TDKJ2G18230, and Engine No. TDJ4G75313 which has been confiscated under order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), East Muzaffarpur in Confiscation Case No. 5 of 2020- 21 arising out of Brahampur P.S Case No. 370 of 2019 registered for offences under Sections 414, 411 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).
3. The order of confiscation has been affirmed in Excise Appeal Case No. 159 of 2021 by the Excise Commissioner, Patna as also by the Additional Chief Secretary, Excise, Patna in Excise Revision Case No. 35 of 2021.
4. At 13:20, on 26.10.2019, the informant (police official) received information regarding a white Scorpio vehicle being stolen. He proceeded to verify the information and take necessary action. He reached the Chandni Chowk over-bridge when he received further information that the vehicle was tagged/enabled with Global Positioning System (GPS) and that two young males had disembarked from the vehicle and fled away.
5. It is alleged that from the white Scorpio, one 375 ml bottle of Royal Stag and 100 ml whisky from another bottle of 180 ml of Premium Black Superior Whisky along with an empty bottle of 8 PM whisky were recovered. The total quantum of alleged recovery thus is 475 ml illicit liquor.
6. It is the petitioner’s case that the vehicle was hired from the petitioner on 25.10.2019 for going to Siwan. On the way back, the driver stopped at about 12:30 in the afternoon on 26.10.2019 at a petrol pump situated on Sadatpur National Highway 28, in Muzaffarpur for replenishing diesel in the vehicle.
7. It is the petitioner’s case that at the petrol pump after filling up diesel in the vehicle, his driver requested the passengers to pay for the diesel, which infuriated the passengers, who started abusing the nozzleman of the petrol pump as well as the driver and on threat of gunpoint, they took the vehicle away.
8. The petitioner’s vehicle bearing Registration No. BR- 06-PD-9548, Chassis No. MA1TA2TDKJ2G18230, and Engine No. TDJ4G75313 was taken away and an FIR of the incident, though with some variation regarding factual details, was lodged and registered as Kanti P.S Case No. 802 of 2019. When the petitioner came to learn about the incident, he immediately switched off the GPS installed in the vehicle so as to disable the vehicle's functioning, whereupon the vehicle stalled. The location of the vehicle was also ascertained from the GPS installed in the vehicle and intimation given to the Brahampur police station.
9. About one hour later, the vehicle and alleged 475 ml of illicit liquor was recovered from the vehicle in question, and FIR was lodged as Brahampur P.S Case No. 370 of 2019. The petitioner’s vehicle was seized and subsequently confiscated.
10. This Court considers it appropriate to record that the search and seizure of the vehicle or property was effected while the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016/, as amended by the Bihar and Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 was applicable.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution story in the two FIRs arising out of Kanti P.S Case No. 802 of 2019 and subsequent Brahampur P.S Case No. 370 of 2019 corroborates the sequence of events as stated by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner is a victim of the circumstances. His vehicle was looted, the authorities were having knowledge of the vehicle being looted. He in fact helped the police authorities in apprehending the vehicle by disabling the GPS, which led to stalling of the vehicle facilitating its seizure. In the circumstances, the order of confiscation and its affirmation in appeal and revision is without
The main legal point established is the requirement of natural justice, reasoned orders, and adherence to time limits in confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Confiscation of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act requires direct involvement of the owner in the offense; without such involvement, confiscation orders are deemed arbitrary and un....
Confiscation of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act requires evidence of the owner's consent or involvement in illegal activities; failure to establish this renders confiscation inva....
Vehicle owners cannot be penalized for release if their vehicle was stolen and they are not involved in criminal activities, reaffirming judicial principles of justice.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
