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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 1002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
Kalam Ansari, Son Of Jahril Ansari – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.11188 Of 2024
Decided On : 22-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, G.P.-12, Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to GP-12, Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP.

The Special Excise Court lacks jurisdiction to release seized vehicles under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, but the High Court retains writ jurisdiction to address arbitrary seizures.

Headnote:(A) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 - Sections 30(a), 32(2), 48, 56, 60, and 57B - Quashing of order - Petition filed to quash the order rejecting the application for release of a seized vehicle - Special Court's jurisdiction barred under Section 60 - The vehicle was seized with liquor, and the petitioner claimed ownership and valid documents - The court held that jurisdiction is barred for releasing seized vehicles under the Act, but the petitioner may apply for release upon penalty payment as per Rule 12A. (Paras 1, 5, 11, 16)

(B) Jurisdiction of Courts - The Special Excise Court lacks jurisdiction to order the release of seized vehicles under the Act, but the High Court retains writ jurisdiction to address arbitrary seizures. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order of the Special Court that rejected his application for the release of a truck seized with 2847 liters of liquor, asserting ownership and valid documentation.

Findings of Court:
The Special Excise Court correctly rejected the petitioner's application as it lacked jurisdiction under the Act.

Issues: Whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle and the implications of the statutory provisions regarding seizure and confiscation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the Special Excise Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 60 of the Act, and the petitioner may seek relief through writ jurisdiction if the seizure was arbitrary.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by Ld. Special Judge (Excise), Court No.-II, Muzaffarpur in Excise P.S. Case No. 1777 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(2) and 48 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, whereby Ld. Special Court has rejected the application filed on behalf of the Petitioner to release the seized Truck bearing Registration No. JH-10CR-7110, Chassis No. MC2ERHRC0PDB05988, Engine No. E446CDP063534 in favour of the Petitioner holding that the jurisdiction of the Special Court is barred under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act to release the vehicle seized under the Act.

2. As per the materials on record, the vehicle in question was seized by the Police with 2847 liter liquor and subsequently, Excise P.S. Case No. 1777 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023 was lodged against the owner, who is the Petitioner herein, and other two Accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(2) and 48 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

3. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Ld. APP for the State.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses all valid documents relating to the vehicle showing that he is owner of the vehicle. He further submits that he has also valid documents regarding the liquor which was loaded in the Truck. He also claims that Ld. Special Court has jurisdiction to release the vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. However, Ld. APP for the State defends the impugned order submitting that under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, jurisdiction of the Special Court is barred in regard to release of any vehicles seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and hence, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. He further submits that the seized vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated under Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. However, under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, as stands after amendment in 2022, read with Section 57B of the Act, 2016, the Petitioner is at liberty to get the vehicle released after payment of penalty as stipulated in the Rules.

6. Before I proceed to consider the rival submissions of the parties, it would be pertinent to refer to relevant statutory provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

7. Section 60 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, bars jurisdiction of any Court to pass any order in regard to seized vehicle or other articles under the Act. It reads as follows:-

“60. Bar of jurisdiction in confiscation.-Whenever any liquor, material, still, utensil, implements or apparatus or any receptacle, package, any animal cart, vessel, or other conveyance used in committing any offence, is seized or detained under this Act, no court shall have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, jurisdiction to make any order with regard to such property.”

8. Section 56 of the Act provides for liability of seized vehicles, amongst other seized items, for confiscation. It reads as follows:-

“56. Confiscation of Seized Items:-Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 57B, whenever an offence punishable under this Act, is committed, the Collector or an officer authorized by him may confiscate such items based on the report of the investigating officer.

(2) Such items may include -

(i) any premises or part thereof;

(ii) any animal, vehicle, vessel or conveyance;

(iii) any liquor or intoxicant;

(iv) any other item having bearing with the case;

Provided, where things as mentioned in Section 57 are to be destroyed, then the Collector or an officer authorized by him need not confiscate the same before their destruction.

(3) The State Government may issue necessary direction, guidelines, reg

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