Vehicle owners cannot be penalized for offenses involving stolen vehicles if they are not complicit in the crime.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 18-12-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned GP-6 for the State.

2. The petitioner in this case is seeking release of his vehicle (Innova Crysta Car) bearing registration no. BR01HM-5806, Engine No. 2GDA779788 and Chassis No. MBJJB8EM101656705-0124, which has been seized in connection with Excise Patna P.S. Case No. 336 of 2025 registered on 03.03.2025 for offence alleged under Sections

30(a) & 56(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Amendment Act, 2022.

3. The petitioner in the present case is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Revisional Authority in Excise Revision Case No. 24 of 2025, whereby and whereunder the Revisional Authority has refused to interfere with the appellate order and the confiscation order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise in Vehicle (Acquisition) Case No. 212 of 2025-26. It is submitted that the vehicle in question was seized in connection with Excise Patna P.S. Case No. 336 of 2025, dated 03.03.2025, for allegedly carrying 198.720 litres of liquors. The Confiscating Authority has, though, directed for release of the vehicle in terms of Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules 2021 as amended up to date on payment of 10% of the insured value, plus 3% thereof, the grievance of the petitioner is that neither the Confiscating Authority nor the Appellate and Revisional Authority has duly considered the case of the petitioner, wherein it is specific ground of the petitioner that the vehicle in question was stolen away from his possession and in this connection he had lodged Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 788 of 2024, dated 8.10.2024, registered under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. He had pointed out that the actual registration number of the vehicle is BR01HM-5806, but the person who had stolen away the vehicle had changed the number plate of the vehicle and the number placed on the vehicle was bearing BR01FQ0101. Learned counsel has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Bittu Kumar Gupta v. the State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 13174 of 2025), decided on 14.11.2025, wherein this Hon’ble Court has taken a view that in case of a stolen vehicle, where the vehicle owner has not played any role in commission of any offence and is not an accused, he cannot be burdened with the penalty.

4. Learned GP-6 for the State submits that since the vehicle in question had been found carrying approximately 198.720 liter of liquor, the confiscating authority has taken a view based on a decision of this court in the case of Ramprakash Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 11678 of 2022) decided on 02.09.2022 and directed imposition of penalty of 10% of the insured value of the vehicle. Learned GP-6, however, accepts at the bar that the competent authority has no power to impose an additional 3% over and above the penalty amount. In her submissions, the impugned order, insofar as it directs payment of 3% over and above the penalty amount, may be set aside.

However, the rest of the order be allowed to remain.

Consideration

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned GP-6 for the state, we have gone through the impugned orders. In the revisional order dated 18.09.2025, the revisional authority has categorically observed that on perusal of the F.I.R of Shastri Nagar P.S Case No. 788 of 2024, it is evident that the vehicle in question was stolen away.

6. The revisional authority has also observed that in the said case, there is no involvement of the petitioner, but having said so, he has refused to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority on