IMPORTANT POINT
Penalty for vehicle release in excise seizure cases must consider meagre liquor quantity, lack of owner involvement, and insurance value; full insured amount exorbitant without regular illicit use evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj Sadar in Excise Confiscation Case No. 264 of 2025 (arising out of Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025) whereby and whereunder the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj has fixed a sum equivalent to the insured value of the vehicle in question i.e. a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- as penalty amount for the purposes of release of the vehicle in question.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the First Information Report bearing Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025 dated 15.02.2025, registered under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2016’), against two persons, namely Indrajeet Patel and Ramnath Gupta is that on 15.02.2025 at about 05:30 in the evening while the police personnel were checking vehicles for suspected illicit liquor, at about 07:15 p.m. in the evening one four wheeler vehicle was coming briskly from Uttar Pradesh, whereafter the said vehicle i.e. Tata Nexon car bearing Registration No. UP53DJ9899, Chassis No. MAT627165JLK44037, Engine No. 1.SCRAIL01JRYW38352 was apprehended and checked, leading to recovery of 375 ml. of illicit liquor and one 500 ml. Kingfisher beer can. The said occurrence led to institution of the aforesaid Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the confiscating authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj by the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed in Excise Confiscation Case No. 264 of 2025 has though directed for release of the vehicle in terms of Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2023) on payment of the insured value of the vehicle i.e. a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/-, however the same is exorbitant and unreasonable inasmuch as the quantity of liquor recovered from the said vehicle is meagre. It is further submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on 25.10.2019 i.e. about six years back, hence the depreciated value of the vehicle in question ought to have been considered. It is next submitted that a bare perusal of the Rule 12A(2) of the Rules, 2023 would show that the Collector/his authorized officer while imposing penalty should have due regard to the quantity of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the vehicle owner and the latest insurance value of the vehicle, however in the present case all the said factors have not been considered inasmuch as the owner of the vehicle i.e. the petitioner herein was not apprehended from the spot and there is no averment in the counter affidavit to the effect that the vehicle in question was being regularly used for ferrying illicit liquor. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further referred to paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition to submit that the vehicle of the petitioner was being driven by his driver Indrajeet Patel and the said driver alongwith one Ramnath Gupta were going to attend a marriage ceremony, however on the way the said vehicle was apprehended by the police and on account of recovery of illicit liquor the same was seized, nonetheless as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is having no complicity in the alleged occurrence. 4. Per contra, the Ld Counsel appearing for the respondent- State has submitted that the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 has been passed in accordance with Rule 12A(2) of the Rules, 2023, nonetheless the Ld. Counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to deny the fact that the amount of penalty assessed by