Case Background
The case arose from seizure of a truck belonging to the petitioner. The truck was used for transportation of goods. During checking of vehicles, an Excise Officer allegedly recovered 8.800 litres of illicit liquor from the cabin of the driver.
The officer seized both the truck and the liquor. The driver, named in the record as Subodh Mandal, was arrested. The First Information Report (FIR) also recorded that 5 ml disposable syringes with needles in 217 cartons were recovered from the same truck.
On the recommendation of the Excise Superintendent, confiscation proceedings were started against the truck. The proceedings were registered as Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 340 of 2021 before the District Collector, Gopalganj.
On 07.07.2021, the Collector passed a final order of confiscation of the truck. According to the petitioner, no notice of these proceedings was served on him before that order.
The petitioner challenged this order in appeal, by filing Excise Appeal No. 536 of 2021 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority set aside the Collector’s order and sent the matter back to the Collector, Gopalganj, to hear the case afresh.
After remand, the Collector again passed an order of confiscation of the vehicle on 18.11.2021. The petitioner says that this fresh order was again passed without properly appreciating his submissions.
The petitioner then filed a revision before the Additional Chief Secretary, Excise Department, Bihar, Patna. This was registered as Excise Revision No. 18 of 2022. By order dated 09.02.2022, the Revisional Authority directed that the truck be released only on payment of 50% of the insurance value of the vehicle, as a non-refundable penalty. The criminal trial was allowed to continue separately.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction, challenging the revisional order dated 09.02.2022 and the confiscation order dated 18.11.2021.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar for the Bench also comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice, first noted the reliefs sought by the petitioner.
The petitioner wanted the revisional order dated 09.02.2022 in Excise Revision No. 18 of 2022 to be quashed. Under that order, the vehicle could be released only if the petitioner paid 50% of the insurance value as non-refundable penalty, even though the criminal case was still pending. The petitioner argued that this amounted to “double jeopardy” because he was being financially punished during the pendency of the criminal case.
He also asked for a direction to release the vehicle by relying on an earlier High Court order dated 01.12.2021 in C.W.J.C. No. 19228 of 2021, which he claimed was a similar case. Lastly, he asked for any other suitable relief.
On the facts, the petitioner’s consistent stand was that his truck was used only for transporting goods. He relied on the alleged confession of the driver. According to him, the driver had admitted that he had purchased the 8.800 litres of country-made liquor for his own personal consumption, and had kept it inside the cabin.
From this, the petitioner argued that he, as owner of the truck, had no knowledge about the liquor being kept in the truck. Therefore, his vehicle was not being used for transporting illicit liquor for trade, and should not be confiscated.
He also claimed that he had given a satisfactory account of the seized liquor, namely that it belonged personally to the driver. Therefore, the truck could not be treated as indulging in transportation of illicit liquor, and this aspect required proper consideration by the confiscating authority.
The petitioner further pointed out that the confiscation order did not refer to any report of a chemical analyst. There was no mention in the impugned orders of any chemical test confirming that the seized liquid was indeed “intoxicant” or prohibited liquor. This absence was relevant for deciding whether an offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise law had been made out for confiscation of the vehicle.
Another key legal argument related to the timing of the revisional order. The petitioner referred to an amendment in the Excise Rules notified on 05.04.2022. Through that amendment, Rule 12A was inserted, providing a legal basis for release of vehicles on payment of penalty.
However, the Revisional Authority had passed its order on 09.02.2022, i.e., before this amendment came into force. Even so, it directed release of the vehicle on payment of 50% of the insured value as non-refundable penalty. The petitioner argued that, on that date, there was no such legal provision in existence to support the imposition of such a penalty for release of the vehicle.
The High Court then turned to the legal framework governing confiscation of vehicles in excise/prohibition cases. It noted that the procedure for confiscation of vehicles is laid down in Section 13B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021. The Court reproduced this provision in full.
Section 13B requires that, once the Collector receives a proposal for confiscation of any vehicle or other conveyance from a Police Officer or Excise Officer, the Collector must issue a show-cause notice to the owner. This notice must be served as per the procedure in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding service of summons.
It further mandates that the Collector must provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the owner. The Investigating Officer or Inquiry Officer must also be given a chance to participate. If the person who has been validly served with notice fails to appear on two consecutive dates fixed for hearing, the confiscating authority may pass an ex parte order.
Only after hearing the parties and being satisfied that an offence has been committed in terms of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 can the Collector pass an order regarding the seized vehicle. Any person aggrieved by such an order may file an appeal in the manner prescribed.
The Court also referred to the insertion of Section 26A after sub-section 26 of sub-section 2 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. This new Section 26A defines “exhibit” to mean documents, records, objects, photographs, animations, or other items having evidentiary value which need to be formally produced in court, including electronic images like videography or drone images.
The High Court observed that the confiscating authority must take this provision into account while considering evidence in confiscation proceedings.
Having reviewed the statutory requirements, the Court concluded that the orders in question could not stand. It stated that, in view of the legal provisions, the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna in Excise Revision No. 18 of 2022, and the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj in Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 340 of 2021, were liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Court quashed both these orders. It remanded the matter back to the Collector, Gopalganj. The Collector has been directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law and the excise procedure rules, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
At the same time, the Court clarified that it shall be open for the petitioner to avail the remedy under the amended Act/Rules to get his vehicle released on payment of penalty. In other words, while setting aside the previous orders, the Court did not bar the petitioner from using the newly inserted legal provisions, such as Rule 12A, for securing release of his truck if he chooses to accept the penalty route now provided under law.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court decision is important for truck and vehicle owners whose vehicles are seized in prohibition or excise cases in Bihar.
First, it stresses that confiscation of a vehicle is not automatic just because some liquor is found. Authorities must follow the exact legal procedure: issue proper notice, serve it correctly, give the owner a fair chance to be heard, and then pass a reasoned order after considering all evidence.
Second, the judgment makes clear that a revisional authority cannot impose a penalty-based release condition unless there is a specific rule in force at that time allowing such a penalty. Orders must be grounded in existing law, not in future amendments.
Third, the Court shows that owners can point out gaps in the evidence, such as absence of a chemical analyst’s report, and these issues must be considered while deciding confiscation.
Finally, by allowing the petitioner to use the amended provisions for release of the vehicle on penalty, the Court highlights that legal remedies created later can still be used in ongoing matters, subject to the language of the amended law.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the confiscation of the petitioner’s truck and the revisional order imposing 50% penalty of insurance value for its release were valid in law.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court set aside both the confiscation order dated 18.11.2021 and the revisional order dated 09.02.2022, and remanded the matter to the Collector to decide afresh as per the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 after granting reasonable opportunity to all concerned.
Issue: Whether the petitioner can still seek release of the vehicle by paying penalty under the amended excise provisions.
Answer: Yes. The Court expressly left it open for the petitioner to avail the remedy under the amended Act/Rules to get the vehicle released on payment of penalty.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No earlier judicial precedents are cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3687 of 2022
Case Title: Mohammad Basim Akram @ Mohammad Wasim Akram @ Wasim Akram v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (3) PLJR 49
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar
Date of Judgment: 05-05-2022
Advocates: For the petitioner: Mr. Md. Harun Quareshi; For the respondents (State): Mr. Vivek Prasad, G.P. 7
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging orders passed in excise confiscation and revision proceedings concerning seizure of a truck under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise law.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
