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

2025 Supreme(Pat) 437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. Bajanthri, S. B. PD. Singh, JJ.
Sunil Kumar, son of Kamleshwar Yadav - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department and ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15682 of 2024
Decided On : 17-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Madhukar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, G.P-16, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, AC to GP-16

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 unlawful.

Headnote:(A) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 - Sections 47, 56, 57B, 58, 61, 92 - Vehicle confiscation - Vehicle seized for alleged involvement in transporting illicit liquor, later proven to be stolen - Seizure arbitrary as petitioner was not involved in the offence and not an accused - Confiscation order quashed. (Paras 8, 23, 24)

(B) Constitutional Rights - Right to property - Deprivation of property without authority of law infringes Article 300 A - Confiscation proceedings not justified based on evidence presented in the case. (Paras 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of a vehicle stolen in 2022, challenged the confiscation of the vehicle after it was involved in an unrelated crime. The Excise Commissioner's order directed release upon penalty, which the petitioner contested.

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime and ruled the confiscation unlawful.

Issues: The primary questions involved the legitimacy of confiscating the vehicle without evidence of the owner's involvement in the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that both usage of the vehicle in an offense and the owner's involvement are prerequisites for legal confiscation under the Act, and concluded there was no basis for the confiscation order, declaring it arbitrary.

Result: The petitioner’s vehicle is to be released immediately.

Table of Content
1. vehicle ownership and theft details (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contested confiscation and appeal process (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. statutory provisions for vehicle seizure (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. conditions for vehicle confiscation not met (Para 23 , 24)
5. order for vehicle release granted (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

S. B. PD. SINGH, J.

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

i) To set aside the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Gaya in Memo No. 125 dated 01.04.2023 in Excise Confiscation Case No. 841/2022, and the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Patna in Excise Appeal Case No. 89/2023 in connection with Dobhi P.S. Case No. 663/22.

(ii) To direct the respondents to release the seized Mahindra Bolero bearing Registration No. JH03L-5222, Engine No. GHF4A55091, Chassis No. MA1XA2GHKF5A22539, in favour of the petitioner, which was stolen on 18.02.2022 from the house of the brother in law of the petitioner and seized by Dobhi, Gaya PS on 30/07/2022.

(iii) To grant any other relief (s) as deemed appropriate under the law.

2. The relevant facts of the case as emerging from the record are that petitioner is the owner of Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing Chasis no. MA1XA2GHKF5A22539, Engine no. GHF4A55091 which was registered with the Transport Department with Registration No. JH03L-5222. On 18.02.2022. The Bolero vehicle of the petitioner was stolen from the residence of his brother-in-law namely Ankit Kumar. The petitioner, thereafter registered Nokha P.S. Case No. 47 of 2022 (Annexure-1) under Section 379 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE on 20.02.2022.

3. Further case of the petitioner is that the vehicle of the petitioner was later found with a new number plate bearing JH09F-2828 and it was seized by the Dobhi Police Station on 30.07.2022 for the alleged recovery of 1035 Kgs of Mahua Flower and 05 litres of illicit liquor and Dobhi P.S. Case No. 663 of 2022 (Annexure-2) was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise(Amendment) Act, 2018.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without prior notice to the petitioner, the seized vehicle was confiscated by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Gaya in Excise Confiscation Case No. 841 of 2022 (Annexure-3). It is further submitted that as soon as the petitioner became aware of seizure of vehicle under Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, he approached the Excise Court, Gaya who directed the Investigating Officer to submit a report in this regard. The Investigating Officer has submitted the report on 07.05.2023 (Annexure-4) stating that the petitioner had no role in the crime and the vehicle was stolen from the house of petitioner’s brother-in-law and Nokha P.S. Case No. 47 of 2022 was registered in this regard.

5. The petitioner, thereafter filed an appeal before Excise Commissioner, Bihar in Excise Appeal Case No. 89 of 2023. The Excise Commissioner, vide order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure-7) directed the seized vehicle to be released after imposition of appropriate penalty as may be decided by the District Collector, Gaya, after submission of prescribed form under BIHAR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE RULES , 2021 by the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner, thereafter filed an application (Annexure-5) before the Excise Commissioner, Patna stating that his vehicle was stolen and F.I.R was registered in this regard. During investigation, the involvement of the petitioner was not found in the alleged crime under Excise Act and it was found that his vehicle was used with another false number plate by the accused and imposing a penalty of Rs. 48000/- is unjust and improper. However, no action was taken on the aforesaid application dated 03.04.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that vehicle of the petitioner was confiscated in a confiscation proceeding after giving prop

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