Order

06/03/2025

1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.7, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Case No. 13/2024 (CIS No. 140/2024) whereby a revision filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 05.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner in Case No. 1550/2024.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this case are that an FIR No. 332/2023 was registered stating that on 25.11.2023, the complainant was on a patrolling with other policeman and at around 2:40 P.M., they received reliable secret information about the illegal sale of liquor at Naikon Ka Mohalla. Upon reaching the spot, they found four individuals on two motorcycles engaged in selling liquor without a valid license. Consequently, an FIR was lodged under Sections 19/54 and 20/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. During the investigation, the motorcycles were seized, and a charge sheet was filed, also including Sections 482 and 483 of the IPC. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for the release of motorcycle No. RJ-07-PS-0374, but it was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 05.10.2024. A revision petition was subsequently filed before the Additional Sessions Judge No.7, Bikaner, which was also rejected on 09.12.2024, upholding the Magistrate’s order. The petitioner being aggrieved by this has approached this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders dated 09.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.7, Bikaner, and 05.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner, are contrary to law and facts, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and therefore deserve to be set aside. He contended that the rejection of the application was based on an incorrect interpretation of Section 69(6) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, which applies only to vehicles seized under the Excise Act. It is further argued that that lower courts failed to appreciate this fact and erroneously relied on Section 69(6) of the Excise Act, which is inapplicable. However, in this case, the vehicle was also implicated under Sections 482 and 483 of IPC, and the Excise Department has nodded for its release after depositing the fine amount of ₹15,000/- towards compounding process as per the order dated

06.09.2024 by the District Excise Officer, Bikaner. He further stated that the petitioner is the undisputed registered owner of the vehicle, as evidenced by the challan papers and the Excise Officer’s order, the continued refusal to release the vehicle is unjust. The petitioner is being forced to suffer due to a technicality, with neither the courts nor the Excise Department taking responsibility for the vehicle’s release. For these reasons, the petitioner made a prayer to set aside the orders passed by the courts below.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned orders dated

05.10.2024 and 09.12.2024.

6. After perusing the record and pondering upon the submissions and materials made available to the Court, it is revealed that the Excise officer, vide order dated 06.09.2024, has released the seized vehicle from confiscation and imposed a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and the offence related to Excise Act has been dropped post compounding of the offences. It is further noted that an express order has been passed stating that if the seized vehicle is no longer required in connection with any case other than Case No. 332 dated 25.11.2023, filed under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act, then the seized vehicle should be released in favor of the petitioner and be absolved from confiscation. Since the property was seized by