Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 91
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA, J.
Soumya Ranjan Behera - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
CRLMC No. 762 of 2025
Decided On : 11-08-2025
For the Appellant : Jagannath Bhuyan
For the Respondent: B.K. Sahu
The Odisha Excise Act, 2008 establishes that confiscation proceedings are stand-alone and not governed by the Cr.P.C., limiting the court's inherent jurisdiction to intervene.
Headnote:(A) Odisha Excise Act, 2008 - Section 71 - Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - Quashing of confiscation orders - The court ruled that the confiscation proceeding under Section 71 is a stand-alone provision not governed by Cr.P.C. Therefore, the application seeking quashing is not maintainable. (Paras 10 and 11)
(B) Inherent Jurisdiction - The court cannot exercise inherent powers if the relevant provision has its own procedure, indicating the need for compliance with specific statutory mechanisms. (Para 10)
(C) Appellate Procedure - The court acknowledged that an appeal can be filed against confiscation orders to the Excise Commissioner, reinforcing the procedural avenue available. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the confiscation of a vehicle involved in excise violations, following orders issued by both the Authorized Officer and the Excise Commissioner.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the confiscation proceeding is a statutory process independent of the Cr.P.C., reaffirming the limitation of the inherent jurisdiction by granting liberty to seek alternative remedies.
Issues: Whether the orders of confiscation are appealable under the Cr.P.C. and the maintainability of the application under Section 482.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that confiscation proceedings are in accordance with specific provisions of the Odisha Excise Act and are not criminal in nature, making the present application unmaintainable.
Result: The application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto and order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack in Excise Appeal Case No.28/2024-1252.
3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner thereby invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S. with a prayer to quash the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack in Excise Appeal Case No.28/2024-1252 at Annexure-6 and consequentially to quash order 14.11.2024 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum- Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack in Excise C.P. Case No.81/2024-25 at Annexure-4.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the vehicle in question was seized while it was carrying liquor. Accordingly, a case was registered against the accused persons and, accordingly, a criminal prosecution was launched bearing P.R. No.73 of 2024-25 which is now pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog-Taking-II), Cuttack. Besides the aforesaid criminal prosecution, a confiscation proceeding was also initiated against the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-02V-0482 i.e. the TATA Indigo vehicle as described in the document under Annexure-3 to the application. The confiscation proceeding was registered as Excise C.P. Case No.81 of 2024-25, the Authorized Officer-cum-Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed the order for confiscation of the vehicle which was involved in the abovenoted excise case for which a criminal prosecution has already been launched.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 14.11.2024, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack in Excise Appeal Case No.28/2024-1252. The aforesaid appeal has been filed under Section 71 (6) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. The appeal so preferred by the Petitioner has also been rejected vide order dated 11.02.2025 at Annexure-6 to the application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders passed in the abovenoted confiscation proceeding, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S.
6. Learned counsel for the State on other hand contended that any order passed in the confiscation proceeding cannot be challenged by the Petitioner by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. corresponding 528 of the B.N.S.S. She further contended that the Section 71 of the O.E. Act, 2008 is a stand-alone provision which provides for confiscation of the vehicles involved in the commission of the crime. So far the commission of the crime is concerned, a separate criminal prosecution is to be launched against the accused persons upon filing of the P.R. She further contended that for violation of the provisions contained in Section 52 , 58, 60, 61, 62 & 63 of the Act, criminal liability has been provided in Section 66 to Section 70 of the said Act.
7. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that a proceeding under Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act for confiscation of the vehicle is not a criminal proceeding. Therefore, the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Moreover, the proceeding under Section 71 is not governed under the Cr.P.C./B.N.S.S. Therefore, the power under Section 482 /528 of the respective act cannot be exercised to set aside the impugned orders. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is misconceived and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed at the threshold.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful scrutiny of the materials on record, this Court observes that the Petitioner has
