Case Background
The case arose from an alleged recovery of illicit liquor from a private vehicle in Gopalganj district, Bihar.
According to the record, 146.880 litres of illicit liquor were allegedly recovered from a Swift Dzire car bearing registration number BR-09AP-7814. On this basis, Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 609 of 2023 was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Following the recovery, confiscation proceedings were started against the vehicle. These proceedings were conducted before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj, in Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 290 of 2024.
On 16.07.2024, the Sub Divisional Magistrate (also referred to as Sub Divisional Officer), Gopalganj, passed an order confiscating the Swift Dzire car.
The car owner challenged this order in appeal before the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, by filing Excise Appeal Case No. 01 of 2025. On 28.01.2025, the Excise Commissioner dismissed the appeal and affirmed the confiscation order.
Aggrieved by both these orders, the owner approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction, filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6743 of 2025. The challenge before the High Court was therefore to the confiscation order of the Sub Divisional Officer and the appellate order of the Excise Commissioner.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey. The C.A.V. judgment was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey and dated 05.08.2025.
The petitioner before the Court was the registered owner of the Swift Dzire car. He contended that though liquor was allegedly recovered from his vehicle, he himself was not named in the first information report. Despite this, his vehicle had been confiscated.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that no proper notice was served upon him in the confiscation proceeding. According to him, this violated the basic principles of natural justice, which require that a person must be given a fair opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken against his property.
He further submitted that the authorities did not follow the mandatory procedure at the time of seizure. Reference was made to Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), corresponding to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), and it was argued that the seizure list contained several discrepancies.
The petitioner’s side also pointed out that there was no videography of the seizure, nor any F.S.L. or chemical examination report of the seized liquor. It was contended that this was against the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (as amended in 2022).
It was orally submitted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents of a similar nature. He claimed to be a bona fide owner of the vehicle and asserted that he had never used his car for transporting India made foreign liquor.
On these grounds, he argued that the orders of the confiscating authority and the appellate authority were illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and not in accordance with law. He requested that both orders be quashed and his vehicle be released.
At the same time, the petitioner also expressed willingness to take benefit of Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2021, read with the amended Rules of 2022 and 2023. He stated that he was ready to deposit the amount fixed by the confiscating authority for release of the vehicle under that scheme.
On the other hand, the State’s counsel opposed the writ petition. He submitted that the petitioner’s vehicle was actually found involved in illegal transportation of prohibited liquor, in violation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
He pointed out that a huge quantity of illicit liquor, namely 146.880 litres, was recovered from the car. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj, had rightly confiscated the vehicle by order dated 16.07.2024 in Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 290 of 2024, and the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, had correctly upheld that order in Excise Appeal Case No. 01 of 2025 by order dated 28.01.2025.
The State’s stand was that the petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle, could not escape liability for such a large quantity of illicit liquor recovered from his car.
The Patna High Court examined the material on record. It noted that there was indeed “huge recovery of illicit liquor from the seized vehicle”. The Court specifically recorded that 146.880 litres of illicit liquor were recovered from the petitioner’s car.
The Court then turned to Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, which deals with “Release of Vehicles, Conveyance etc. on Payment of Penalty”. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12(A) had been amended by the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023.
The Bench reproduced the amended sub-rule (2), which states that the amount of penalty shall be decided by the Collector or authorized officer. While fixing the penalty, the authority must consider three aspects: the quantity of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the vehicle owner, and the latest insurance value of the vehicle.
The rule also provides that the penalty shall not be less than 10% of the insured value of the vehicle and shall not exceed Rs. 5,00,000. If insured value is not available, or if there is reason to believe the vehicle is undervalued, the authority may get valuation done by the District Transport Officer.
After considering the facts, the Court observed again that there was recovery of a “huge quantity of 146.880 liters of illicit liquor” from the car. On that basis, it held that the petitioner could not escape liability for this recovery.
At the same time, the Court also noted that the petitioner did not have criminal antecedents of a similar nature. This factor weighed in his favour while deciding the quantum and nature of punishment relating to the vehicle.
Balancing these two aspects — the serious nature of the recovery and the absence of past similar offences — the Court decided to modify the orders passed by the confiscating and appellate authorities instead of quashing them outright.
In exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the Bench held that, in the light of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12(A), a fine of Rs. 3,00,000 would be “justified and legal” in this case.
Accordingly, the Court modified the impugned orders to the extent that the petitioner was directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 3,00,000.
The Court further directed that a certified copy of the judgment be produced before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj, within two weeks. From the date of such production, the petitioner would have two weeks to deposit the fine amount.
If the fine is deposited within that time, the vehicle is to be released. If the petitioner fails to deposit the fine, the Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj, is to continue with the confiscation and consequential proceedings, including auction of the motor vehicle, if it has not already been auctioned.
With these directions and modifications, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for vehicle owners in Bihar whose vehicles are seized in prohibition cases.
First, the Patna High Court accepted that a very large quantity of illicit liquor in a vehicle can attract serious consequences and that the owner cannot easily escape responsibility.
At the same time, the Court showed that complete confiscation and loss of the vehicle is not the only possible outcome. Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended) gives a legal way for release of vehicles on payment of a penalty.
In this case, instead of allowing the car to be permanently confiscated and auctioned, the Court fixed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000, taking into account the large quantity of liquor as well as the absence of similar past offences.
For ordinary people, this means that even if their vehicle is seized in liquor cases, there may be a scope to get it back by using the statutory scheme for release on penalty, depending on the facts of their case and the Court’s assessment.
The judgment also reinforces that authorities must keep in mind the factors mentioned in Rule 12(A): quantity of liquor, involvement of owner, and the vehicle’s insured value, when deciding the penalty.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle, used for transporting a large quantity of illicit liquor, should be sustained in full or modified under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended).
Answer: The Patna High Court upheld the petitioner’s liability but modified the confiscation orders by directing release of the vehicle on payment of a Rs. 3,00,000 penalty under Rule 12(A), failing which confiscation and auction would continue.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judgments or case law have been cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6743 of 2025
Case Title: Vipin Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 19
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
Date of Judgment: 05.08.2025
C.A.V. Date: 30.07.2025
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging confiscation and appellate orders in an excise/confiscation matter
Statutory Provisions Involved: Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018; Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (as amended 2022); Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 as amended by the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023; Section 100 Cr.P.C. and corresponding Section 103 B.N.S.S.
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarbottam Kumar Sarkar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Muijtabaul Haque, GP 12; Mr. Pranoy Kumar, AC to GP 12
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment Link
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.
