The appropriate authority under the Odisha Excise Act must initiate confiscation proceedings; an unauthorized initiation cannot bar the owner's right to reclaim a seized vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Present Application is filed U/s. 482 Cr.P.C to challenge the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2019 whereby the order dated 4.11.2019 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 132 of 2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada was affirmed. Learned S.D.J.M. had rejected the petition filed under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for delivery of the vehicle seized in connection with the offences under sections 52(a) and 62(1) of the Odisha Excise Act.

2. The petitioner is admittedly the registered owner of the TATA ACE Pick Up bearing Regd. No. OD-11M-9933, and the aforesaid vehicle has been referred to as the 8vehicle9. The vehicle was seized by the Police as it was found to be illegally transporting 51.8 litres of IMFL near Tanki Sahi of Baripada town. In the P.R. report No. 49/2019-20 no allegation has been made against the petitioner. The Inspector of Excise has submitted his report vide D.B. No. 680 dated 28.01.2020 regarding initiation of confiscation proceeding of seized vehicle. The petitioner filed his statement on 04.10.2019 stating his ignorance of the illegal transportation of IMFL in his vehicle.

3. Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Petitioner has no role in the alleged commission of offence. He has cited the P.R. No. 49/2019-20 wherein no allegation has been made against the petitioner and he has not been arrayed as an accused. He has submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the illegal transportation of IMFL in his vehicle and that a person named Sanjeeb Behera had taken his vehicle on rent for transportation of cement and rod from Baripada. He has also contended that the Superintendent of Excise or the Authorised Officer is the competent authority to initiate the confiscation proceeding in respect of the seized vehicle but in the present case the former Inspector of Excise has unjustifiably initiated the proceedings. Further the vehicle should not be left exposed to sun, rain, and other external hazards which could irreversibly damage and decay the vehicle. Hence, the petition may be allowed, and direction may be issued for the release of the vehicle.

4. Per contra, Mr.Anupam Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the release of the vehicle of the petitioner contending that the vehicle in question was used by the accused in committing offence under section 52(a) and 62(1) of the Odisha Excise Act, and therefore, is liable to be confiscated under Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act. Further, since confiscation proceedings have already been initiated, the order of rejection passed by learned lower court is correct. The Inspector of Excise through the report vide D.B. No.680 dated 28.01.2020 has submitted that the confiscation proceeding against the vehicle has been initiated by former Inspector of Excise Sri Ajay Kumar Behera, Sadar Range, Baripada. Thus, in view of the bar provided under proviso of Section 71 (b)(7) of the Odisha Excise Act, the seized vehicle cannot be released during pendency of the confiscation proceedings even on the application of the owner of the seized vehicle for such release. Further, Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act bars the jurisdiction of any other court from entertaining application in respect of the property.

5. Heard Sri Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Anupam Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel for opposite party and perused the case records. It is a prima facie view tha