Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI and JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
CWJC No.4040 of 2023
(30.1.2024)
Binit Kumar ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 – Sections 56, 57B, 58, 61, 92, 93, 95 – Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules 2021 – Rule 12A – Seizure of 180 ML of Indian Made Foreign Liquor – Confiscation of Motorcycle – Any vehicle or conveyance can be seized and confiscated under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 only when vehicle has been used for carrying / transporting any intoxicant or liquor – No vehicle can be seized or confiscated without its use in commission of any offence under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 – As such, use of vehicle in transport of illicit liquor/intoxicant is sine qua non for its seizure and confiscation – As per letter dated 07.02.2020 bearing Letter No. 13/HC-06-55/2020-670, written by Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department cum Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, such vehicle from which no liquor has been recovered, will not be confiscated. (Paras 16, 17 and 19)
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 – Rule 12A – Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 – Sections 56, 57B, 58, 61, 92, 93, 95 – Seizure of 180 ML of Indian Made Foreign Liquor – Confiscation of Motorcycle – No intoxicant or liquor was recovered from motorcycle of petitioner – Only 180 ML liquor was recovered from pant of petitioner – In such situation, motorcycle cannot be held to have been used to carry illicit liquor which was recovered from person of petitioner – Word 'use' cannot be given liberal or expansive meaning – It has to be interpreted strictly as it has penal consequences – Appellate Authority did not correct wrong and upheld confiscation order – Even Revisional Authority did not do full justice, directing release of vehicle only after payment of 50% of insurance value of motorcycle – Petitioner was constrained to move High Court incurring further expense on litigation – This case is a classic illustration of how people are being harassed by concerned State officials in name of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 – All impugned orders are arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of Constitution – They are also violative of Constitutional right of petitioner to hold property as provided in Article 300A of Constitution, which prohibits any deprivation of property without authority of law – Seizure and confiscation of motorcycle in question is without any authority of law – Confiscation, appellate and revisional orders are liable to be quashed – Petitioner, whose constitutional right to property has been violated, is entitled to adequate compensation – He is also entitled to compensation on account of expenditure and harassment in course of forced litigations – District Collector, Saharsa directed to release motorcycle forthwith, also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to petitioner towards compensation. (Paras 20, 21 and 22)
Jitendra Kumar, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:—
“(i) Issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by Revisional Authority in Excise Revision No. 16 of 2022 (Binit Kumar vs. Excise Commissioner & Ors.).
(ii) Issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 14.12.21 passed by Appellate Authority in Excise Appeal Case No. 822 of 2021 (Binit Kumar vs. Collector, Saharsa & Ors.)
(iii) Issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 14.08.21, passed by Collector, Saharsa, in Confiscation Case No. 102/2018-19
(iv) Any other relief or relief's for which the petitioner be found entitled.”
2. The relevant facts of the case, as emerging from the record, is that while the petitioner was riding on a motorcycle, bearing Registration No. BR19K 5509, he was stopped by the police on suspicion and on search, 180 ML of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was recovered from the pant of the petitioner. Subsequently, the alleged illicit liquor and the vehicle in question were seized and an FIR bearing Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 1006 of 2017 was registered on 26.09.2017 against the petitioner Binit Kumar. Thereafter, Confiscation Case No. 102 of 2018-19 was initiated by Ld. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saharsa, wherein, initially, the motorcycle of the petitioner was released provisionally in favour of the petitioner in the light of the order of this Court dated 18.01.2019, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1231 of 2019. But subsequently, vide order dated 14.8.2021, passed in Confiscation Case No. 102 of 2018-19, the motorcycle in question was confiscated and directed to be auctioned. The said order of confiscation and auction was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Excise Commissioner, Patna in Excise Appeal Case No. 822 of 2021. However, vide order dated 14.12.2021, passed in Excise Appeal Case No. 822 of 2021, the confiscation and auction order, passed by the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Saharsa was upheld. The said appellate order dated 14.12.2021 was again challenged in Excise Revision bearing No. 16 of 2022 before the Additional Chief Secretary, Patna. In the revision, the vehicle in question was directed to be released on payment of 50% of the insurance value of the vehicle in question as non- refundable penalty.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question and his vehicle has been arbitrarily seized and confiscated and directed to be auctioned. He further submits that the vehicle in question was no way used in transportation of alleged seized contraband. The alleged recovery of 180 ML of illicit liquor was made from the pant of the petitioner as per the FIR itself and as such, it has been allegedly recovered from the person of the petitioner. The vehicle in question cannot be said to be used in carrying the illicit liquor. He further submits that in fact, no recovery of illicit liquor was made from the possession of the petitioner, and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police. In fact, the vehicle in question was seized from the house of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the vehicle is no way liable for any seizure and confiscation. The petitioner is entitled to return of the vehicle with compensation for violation of his constitutional right and expenditure on forced litigation.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents who represent the State, however, defends the impugned orders submitting that the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 under facts and circumstances of the case and hence, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders and the petitioner does not deserve any relief as pray
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....
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 both direct involvement in the offence and the owner's connivance, absent which no penalty may be imposed.
Confiscation of property requires evidence of owner's involvement in the crime; lack thereof violates fundamental rights.
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
