Confiscation under S.47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act mandates notice and hearing, failure of which invalidates the seizure.

1. This petition under S.482 of the CrPC is directed against the order dated 2.5.2022 (Annexure P - 1) passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Criminal Revision No.H 10/2022, by which the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner herein under S.47 - C of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1915') affirming the order dated 7.1.2022 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Raipur in Appeal Case No.R.E.C. 24 / 2021-22 and further affirming the order dated 2.9.2021 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund in Case No. 158/2020 confiscating the vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.C G 04 HX 6509.

2. The petitioner's vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.CG 04 HX 6509 was found involved in commission of offence under S.34(2) of the Act of 1915 and consequently, confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Collector, Mahasamund under S.47 - A of the Act of 1915 and ultimately, by order dated 2.9.2021 the vehicle was directed to be confiscated, which has been affirmed by the Excise Commissioner, Raipur in an appeal preferred by the petitioner by order dated 7.1.2022 and by the impugned order, the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner affirming the orders of the Collector, Mahsamund and the Excise Commissioner, Raipur.

3. Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is registered owner of the said vehicle and she has only been served with show - cause notice and thereafter the provisions contained in S.47 - A (3) (a) to (d) of the Act of 1915 have been followed in its breach. The petitioner has been deprived of making a representation against proposed confiscation and she has not given any opportunity to lead evidence. As such, the impugned order and the orders of the Excise Commissioner and the Collector deserve to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Ms Ruchi Nagar, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent / State, would support the impugned order and submit that vehicle has rightly been confiscated and appeal and revision have rightly been dismissed by the Excise Commissioner and the learned Sessions Judge. As such, concurrent findings recorded by three authorities are not liable to be interfered with and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. S.47 - A of the Act of 1915 was inserted in the Act of 1915 by M.RAct No.22 of 2000 w.e.f. 4.8.2000. Sub-section (2) of S.47 - A of Act of 1915 provides for confiscation. It can be exercised if Collector is satisfied that an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) of S.34 has been committed and where the quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeds fifty bulk liters he may, on the ground to be recorded in writing, order the confiscation of the intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. so seized.

7. Sub-section (3) of S.47 - A of the Act of 1915 provides as under: - (3) No order under sub-section (2) shall be made unless the Collector has (a) sent an intimation in a form prescribed by the Excise Commissioner about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. to the court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made;
(b) issued a notice in writing to the person from whom such intoxicants, articles, im