Case Background
The case started with the seizure of a truck in Muzaffarpur district. According to the record, the police intercepted the vehicle and recovered 2847 litres of liquor from it.
On this basis, Excise P.S. Case No. 1777 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023 was registered at Excise Police Station, Muzaffarpur. The case was lodged against the truck owner, who later became the petitioner before the High Court, along with two other accused persons.
The offences mentioned in the FIR were under Sections 30(a), 32(2) and 48 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act. After the seizure, the truck bearing Registration No. JH-10CR-7110, with specified chassis and engine numbers, remained in custody of the authorities.
The petitioner approached the Special Judge (Excise), Court No. II, Muzaffarpur. He filed an application seeking release of the seized truck in his favour. On 28.11.2023, the Special Court rejected the application, holding that it had no jurisdiction to release a vehicle seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act in view of Section 60 of the Act.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11188 of 2024 before the Patna High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He sought quashing and setting aside of the Special Court’s order dated 28.11.2023 and release of the truck.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter came up before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar on 22.05.2024. The Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was the true owner of the truck and that he possessed all valid documents relating to the vehicle. He also submitted that he had valid documents for the liquor that was loaded in the truck. On this basis, he claimed that the Special Court did in fact have jurisdiction to release the vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
On the other hand, the State, through the learned APP, defended the order of the Special Court. It was argued that Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 clearly bars the jurisdiction of any court to pass an order regarding vehicles or other property seized under the Act. Therefore, there was no illegality in the order rejecting the release petition.
The APP further submitted that the seized truck was liable to be confiscated under Section 56 of the Act. However, the State also pointed out that under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended in 2022), read with Section 57B of the Act, the petitioner was at liberty to get the vehicle released after payment of penalty as stipulated in the Rules.
Before examining these rival stands, the High Court considered it necessary to reproduce and analyse the key statutory provisions.
First, the Court referred to Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. This provision states that whenever liquor, related materials, apparatus, receptacles, packages, animals, carts, vessels, or other conveyances used in committing an offence are seized or detained under the Act, “no court shall have” jurisdiction to make any order with regard to such property, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law.
Next, the Court examined Section 56 of the Act, which deals with confiscation of seized items. Section 56 allows the Collector or an officer authorised by him to confiscate seized items whenever an offence under the Act is committed, based on the report of the investigating officer. The list of possible items includes premises, animals, vehicles, vessels, liquor and any other item connected with the case. The State Government may also issue directions and guidelines on how search, seizure, destruction and confiscation are to be done.
The Court then turned to Section 57B, a provision inserted in 2022 by way of amendment. Section 57B permits the Collector to release any seized animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance, or even premises, used in committing an offence under the Act, upon payment of such penalty as may be notified by the State Government. If the person concerned does not pay the penalty, the Collector must proceed to confiscate the vehicle or premises as per Section 58.
Explanations to Section 57B clarify that the accused has no right to insist on release on penalty. The Collector can still refuse release in public interest, record reasons in writing, and proceed with confiscation and auction or destruction. The Collector is also required to close ongoing confiscation proceedings if the person pays the notified penalty and release the vehicle, and such release does not affect the criminal trial before the Special Court.
The Court further noted Section 95 of the Act, which empowers the State Government to make rules. On this basis, the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 were framed. Rule 12A, inserted in 2022, gives detailed procedure for release of vehicles, conveyances and similar property on payment of penalty under Section 57B(1).
Under Rule 12A, the owner can apply in a specified form to the Collector or an authorised officer, who may release the vehicle on payment of penalty. If the owner is not identified or does not come forward within 15 days of seizure, the Collector can proceed to confiscate and auction the vehicle. The rule also describes how the penalty amount is to be fixed, keeping in mind the quantity of liquor recovered, involvement of the owner, and the insured value of the vehicle, with a floor and ceiling for the penalty.
The Rule further provides that if the Collector finds, on a report by the police or excise officer, that release would not be in public interest, he must move ahead with confiscation and auction. Penalty paid is non-refundable, regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial, and the owner is bound to produce the vehicle as and when required by the authorities.
After carefully going through these provisions, the High Court concluded that the legal position is clear. Section 60 expressly bars the jurisdiction of any court to make orders relating to vehicles or other property seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Alongside, Sections 56 and 57B and Rule 12A lay down a separate scheme for confiscation and for conditional release on payment of penalty by the Collector.
The Court held that from this statutory scheme it “clearly transpires” that any seized material under the Act is to be dealt with only as per the Act and the Rules, and courts other than in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in respect of release.
The High Court then addressed a related but important constitutional point. Even when a statute bars the jurisdiction of “any court”, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not taken away. On this, the Single Judge relied on earlier Division Bench decisions.
The Court referred to the judgment in Suresh Sah v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2020(1) BLJ 706. In that case, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court had specifically examined Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. It held that although the Special Judge under the Act lacks jurisdiction to order release of the vehicle due to the bar in Section 60, this bar does not operate when the High Court exercises its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The relevant passage was quoted in the present judgment.
The Single Judge also referred to another Division Bench judgment in Sunaina @ Suneina v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 851, AIR ONLINE 2024 PAT 73, 2024 (3) BLJ 163. In that case, the Division Bench, while exercising writ jurisdiction, held that two conditions must be satisfied for seizure and confiscation of a vehicle under the 2016 Act: the vehicle must have been used for transporting liquor or intoxicant, and the owner must have consented to or connived in the offence. If these conditions are not fulfilled, seizure and confiscation would be arbitrary and violative of Article 300A (right to property) and Article 14 of the Constitution, and the owner would be entitled not only to release but also compensation. The Division Bench had there quashed the confiscation order and directed payment of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation.
The judgment also noted that similar orders granting relief in writ proceedings were passed in three other Division Bench cases: Binit Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., Shanti Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., and Amarjeet Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., each decided in 2024, where the Court examined the legality of seizure and confiscation under writ jurisdiction.
After surveying this legal landscape, the Single Judge turned back to the facts of the present case. The Court held that, in view of Section 60, the Special Excise Court clearly had no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding a vehicle seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Therefore, the Special Court had rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the truck.
The High Court found no illegality, no impropriety and no miscarriage of justice in the impugned order dated 28.11.2023. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed in limine, meaning at the threshold without issuing notice for detailed hearing.
At the same time, the Court clarified the remedies still open to the petitioner. It observed that if the petitioner is of the view that his vehicle was not liable to be seized under the Excise Act, he is at liberty to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Patna High Court under Article 226, challenging the very basis of seizure or confiscation.
On the other hand, if the petitioner believes that he has violated the statutory provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, thereby rendering his vehicle liable to seizure and confiscation, he may move an appropriate application before the Executive officials. In that case, he can seek release of the vehicle on payment of penalty under Section 57B of the Act and Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for vehicle owners, transporters and drivers caught in prohibition cases in Bihar. Many such persons immediately move the Special Excise Court seeking release of their seized vehicles.
The Patna High Court has once again made it clear that the Special Court under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act cannot order release of vehicles or other seized property because of the express bar in Section 60. Filing such applications before the Special Court will not help, as they are bound to be rejected for want of jurisdiction.
Instead, the judgment shows the two real options available. One, if the owner feels that the seizure itself is illegal and that his vehicle was not used with his consent or involvement, he must approach the High Court under Article 226 in writ jurisdiction. Two, if the owner accepts that the vehicle was involved in the offence, he can move the Collector or authorised officer to seek release on payment of penalty under Section 57B and Rule 12A.
For ordinary people and transport businesses, this clarity can save time, money and effort. It directs them to the correct forum and procedure rather than pursuing remedies which the law does not permit.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the Special Judge (Excise) order release of a truck seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016?
Answer: No. In view of Section 60 of the Act, the Special Excise Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding vehicles or property seized under the Act. - Issue: What remedies are available to a vehicle owner whose truck has been seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act?
Answer: The owner may (a) approach the Collector or authorised officer for release on payment of penalty under Section 57B and Rule 12A, or (b) file a writ petition before the Patna High Court if he claims that the seizure or proposed confiscation is illegal.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Suresh Sah v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2020(1) BLJ 706.
- Sunaina @ Suneina v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 851; AIR ONLINE 2024 PAT 73; 2024 (3) BLJ 163.
- Binit Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 850; 2024 (2) BLJ 341; 2024 (1) PLJR 905.
- Shanti Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 849; AIR ONLINE 2024 PAT 177; 2024 (3) BLJ 130; 2024 (1) PLJR 905.
- Amarjeet Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 853; AIR ONLINE 2024 PAT 127; 2024 (2) BLJ 465; 2024 (2) PLJR 184.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11188 of 2024 (arising out of Excise P.S. Case No. 1777 of 2023, District Muzaffarpur)
Case Title: Kalam Ansari v. The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Citation: 2024 (4) PLJR 416
Advocates: Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, G.P.-12 for the State; Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to G.P.-12 for the State; Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP for the State
Nature of the Case: Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of an order of the Special Judge (Excise) refusing release of a seized vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
Date of Judgment: 22.05.2024
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
