Vehicle Cannot Be Confiscated Without Owner’s Involvement Or Consent In Illicit Liquor Transport Is Proven: Patna High Court
Safiya Malik
The Patna High Court Division Bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey set aside an order confiscating a motorcycle and directed its release within two weeks, holding that a vehicle cannot be subjected to confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 where the owner is not involved in transporting illicit liquor and no consent or connivance is attributable to the owner. The petition was filed by the vehicle owner challenging the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s confiscation order under which the motorcycle was put up for auction, after it was seized in an excise case in which 11.160 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from it, while the owner was not made an accused.
According to the petitioner, his motorcycle had been stolen on 09.05.2022 from a local market, following which he lodged an FIR under Section 379 of the IPC. The vehicle was not traced at that time. Subsequently, in September 2023, the motorcycle was seized in connection with an excise case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, wherein 11.160 litres of illicit liquor was allegedly recovered from it. The petitioner was not named as an accused in that FIR.
The petitioner contended that the vehicle had been stolen prior to its alleged involvement in the excise offence and that there was no material to show his consent or connivance in the commission of the offence. The State opposed the plea but did not dispute the theft FIR or produce material establishing the petitioner’s involvement. It was also admitted that notice of the confiscation proceedings could not be served upon the owner as ownership could not be ascertained.
The Court observed that “the petitioner had filed an FIR on 10.05.2022 bearing Chakiya P.S. Case No.180 of 2022 under Section 379 of the IPC in connection with theft of his motorcycle” and recorded that “the police could not trace out the same but after more than one year, the said motorcycle was seized in connection with Khuchaikote P.S. Case No.470 of 2023 dated 15.09.2023.”
It noted that “the person arrested from the spot, who was driving the said motorcycle is also in no way connected to the petitioner as is apparent from the records.” The Court further recorded that “no proof has been brought on record regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime much less him having any connivance in the alleged occurrence.”
The Bench observed that “the respondent-State has admitted that since the ownership of the vehicle in question could not be traced out, personal notice could not be served upon the actual owner of the vehicle.” It further recorded that “on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and non-grant of reasonable opportunity alone, the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 is fit to be set aside.”
Referring to the earlier Division Bench decision, the Court observed: “no vehicle can be seized or confiscated without its use in commission of any offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.” It stated that “use of the vehicle in transport of illicit liquor/ intoxicant is sine qua non for its seizure and confiscation.”
The Court further observed: “just use of the vehicle to carry intoxicant or liquor is also not sufficient for its seizure and confiscation.” It recorded that “the involvement or connivance of the owner of the vehicle in such illegal use of the vehicle is also an essential prerequisite for confiscation of the vehicle or imposing any penalty for release of the vehicle.”
On the role of the owner, the Court stated: “unless the owner of the vehicle is an accused in the case, the court cannot hold that the owner of the vehicle is directly or indirectly involved in the prohibited use of the vehicle.”
Applying these principles to the present case, the Bench observed that “the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State does not show that either the petitioner is an accused in FIR bearing Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.470 of 2023 or he is in anyway involved in commission of the alleged offence.” It further recorded that “there is no whisper about the FIR filed by the petitioner regarding his motorcycle having been stolen being not authentic or unlawful.”
The Court concluded that “the confiscating authority could not have passed the order of confiscation, especially in absence of any material to show any direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner/owner of the vehicle in commission of the alleged offence.”
The Court directed: “we set aside the impugned order dt. 05.01.2024, passed by the Ld. Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj in Sub-Divisional Confiscation (Excise) Case No.1047 of 2023.” and “direct for release of the motorcycle of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. The petition stands allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sumit Shekhar Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Masoom Raza, Advocate; Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate; Mr. Mirza Ahraz Baig, Advocate
Case Title: Md. Hasmuddeen Ali v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14374 of 2025
Bench: Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
