In Ranju Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Sunil Dutta Mishra concluded: "we are of the opinion that confiscation and auction proceeding of vehicle in question for meager quantity of 1.380 litres of illicit liquor recovered therein is not reasonable." It quashed the order dated December 15, 2021 passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Excise, Patna, Bihar in the Revision (Excise) case, the order dated November 1, 2021 passed by Excise Commissioner in the Excise Appeal case and order dated August 12, 2021 passed by District Magistrate-cum-Confiscating Officer, Supaul in the Confiscation (Excise) case. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000 as fine within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. If the fine is not remitted within the said period, the District Magistrate-cum-Confiscating Authority, Supaul shall continue with the auction proceeding. The Court disposed the petition. The judgment was delivered on March 6, 2025.
The writ petition was filed for setting aside the order dated December 15, 2021 passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order dated November 1, 2021 passed by Excise Commissioner in an Excise Appeal as well as order dated August 12, 2021 passed by District Magistrate-cum-Confiscating Officer, Supaul in a Confiscation (Excise) Case, by which the vehicle of petitioner has been ordered to be confiscated.
The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in CWJC No.11500 of 2021 for release of her vehicle which was disposed of vide order dated July 16, 2021 with direction to Additional Collector, Supaul to dispose of the proceeding within a period of three months or to release the vehicle.
The allegation was that on February 8, 2021 a Scorpio car bearing was standing at the door of Lalan Yadav, on search, 1.380 litres of foreign liquor recovered from wrapper of its seat cover, after which the said vehicle was seized. On basis of these facts, an F.I.R. was registered in Supaul under Section 30(a) of The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (as amended) against Pradeep Kumar Yadav (husband of the petitioner) on the basis that the vehicle is registered in his name. Thereafter, on recommendation of Superintendent of Police, Supaul, confiscation proceeding under Sections 56(b) and 58 of the Act was initiated by Additional District Magistrate, Supaul as a Confiscation (Excise) Case and by order dated August 12, 2021, the vehicle was ordered for confiscation. In the Excise Appeal before Excise Commissioner, the said order of confiscation was affirmed video order dated November 1, 2021. In the excise revision case, the Additional Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna affirmed the order of confiscation of vehicle in question and permitted ADM, Supaul to proceed with auction in confiscation proceeding in accordance with the Act.
The Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court by order dated March 3, 2022 in instant writ petition had directed District Magistrate-cum-Confiscating Authority to provisionally release the vehicle of petitioner with certain conditions stated therein during pendency of this writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there is no involvement of the vehicle in question in any kind of illicit liquor trade and it is purely a case of plantation at instance of enemies of the petitioner’s husband. He was falsely implicated in this case and taking advantage of this incident he has been made accused of two other cases. It was also submitted that the key of the vehicle was found lying by the side of the said vehicle which is indicative of the fact that it is certainly a case of plantation. He further submitted that recovery of meager illicit liquor was at best may be treated for personal consumption and the said vehicle was not used for transporting illicit liquor.
The Division Bench observed that "confiscation and auction proceedings thereof are disproportionate and arbitrary since, confiscation and auction proceedings of the vehicle in question do not commensurate with the offence committed regarding recovery of such a meager quantity of illicit liquor." The judgment was authored by Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra. Justice Bajanthri agreed with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment