State of Chhattisgarh vs Shravan Kumar Yadav @ Suraj

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 18158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
State of Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Shravan Kumar Yadav @ Suraj – Respondent
CRR No. 637 of 2018

Important Points

Confiscation of a vehicle under Section 47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act requires strict proof that the quantity of liquor exceeds five bulk litres; such finding cannot be based on presumptions without scientific examination of the entire seized quantity.

Subject

Criminal Law - Excise Law

Act Referred

Chhattisgarh Excise Act: S.34(2), S.47-A

Headnote

The case pertains to the interpretation of Section 47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act regarding the confiscation of a vehicle used for transporting liquor. The State challenged a Sessions Court order that set aside the confiscation of a Scorpio vehicle, arguing that the vehicle was transporting liquor in excess of the prescribed limit of five bulk litres. The primary issue was whether the confiscation order was legal given that only a small portion of the seized bottles (approximately 2.09 litres) were scientifically tested and confirmed as liquor, while the remaining bottles were not. The court held that the assumption that all 154 seized bottles contained liquor without forensic evidence was not legally admissible, stating that "statutory conditions precedent for exercise of such power must be strictly established." Consequently, the criminal revision preferred by the State being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Tamaskar

Table of Content
1. procedural history regarding vehicle confiscation proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. state's contention regarding statutory consequence of transporting excess liquor. (Para 4)
3. requirement of scientific proof for liquor quantity before confiscation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. scope of revisional jurisdiction and non-interference with concurrent findings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. affirmation of trial court order due to lack of evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

1. Heard Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate for the State/applicant.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the State/applicant against the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Criminal Revision No.15/2017 whereby the revision preferred by respondent/vehicle owner was allowed and the order of confiscation dated 19.01.2015 passed by the Collector, Kabirdham as well as the appellate order dated 04.03.2017 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Raipur were set aside.

3. The facts, in brief, are that in Crime No.80/2014 registered at Police Station Bodla for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, a Scorpio vehicle bearing Chassis No. MA1TA2GMKD2G25197 and Engine No. GMD4G75065 was seized on the allegation that it was being used for transportation of liquor. On the basis of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, confiscation proceedings were initiated and the Collector, Kabirdham, by order dated 19.01.2015, directed confiscation of the vehicle under the provisions of Section 47-A of the Excise Act. The appeal preferred by the respondent before the Excise Commissioner, Raipur came to be dismissed by order dated 04.03.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Criminal Revision No.15/2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 21.02.2018.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court committed grave illegality in interfering with the confiscation order. It is contended that the vehicle was found transporting liquor in excess of the prescribed limit and, therefore, the Collector was fully justified in exercising powers under Section 47-A of the Excise Act. He further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and material available on record and has passed the impugned order in a cryptic manner. According to the State, once transportation of liquor exceeding five bulk litres is established, confiscation of the vehicle follows as a statutory consequence and the orders passed by the Collector and Excise Commissioner ought not to have been interfered with.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the State/applicant and have carefully gone through the entire record.

6. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Sessions Judge committed any illegality in setting aside the confiscation order passed by the Collector and affirmed by the Excise Commissioner.

7. A perusal of the record reveals that the confiscation proceedings were initiated under Section 47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which becomes applicable where the quantity of liquor involved exceeds five bulk litres. The record further discloses that although the prosecution alleged seizure of 154 bottles consisting of country liquor, foreign liquor and beer, there is no material available on record to demonstrate that the contents of all the seized bottles were subjected to any scientific or chemical examination.

8. The learned trial Court, while allowing the revision, has recorded a categorical finding that only a few sample bottles were examined by the Excise Sub-Inspector. The material available on record shows that only eight quarter bottles of 180 ml each and one bottle of 650 ml were tested. Thus, liquor content to the extent of approximately 2.09 litres was examined