The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that confiscation of a vehicle under Section 47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act cannot be sustained on the basis of a presumption that all seized bottles contained liquor exceeding the statutory limit. The Court observed that before invoking the power of confiscation, the competent authority must satisfy itself on the basis of reliable evidence that the seized substance was liquor in a quantity exceeding five bulk litres, and such satisfaction cannot rest upon presumptions unsupported by material evidence.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha was hearing a criminal revision filed by the State against the order of the Sessions Judge, setting aside the confiscation of a Scorpio vehicle. The vehicle had been seized in connection with an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act on the allegation that it was being used for the transportation of liquor. Based on the report of the Superintendent of Police, the Collector ordered the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 47-A of the Act. The Excise Commissioner dismissed the owner's appeal, following which the vehicle owner succeeded in revision before the Sessions Judge.

The State contended that the vehicle was found transporting liquor in excess of the prescribed limit and, therefore, the Collector had rightly exercised powers under Section 47-A of the Act. It was argued that once the transportation of liquor exceeding five bulk litres was established, confiscation of the vehicle followed as a statutory consequence.

The Court noted that although the prosecution alleged seizure of 154 bottles comprising country liquor, foreign liquor and beer, there was no material to show that the contents of all the bottles had been scientifically or chemically examined. It observed that only eight quarter bottles of 180 ml each and one bottle of 650 ml, amounting to approximately 2.09 litres, had been tested by the Excise Sub-Inspector. There was no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, chemical examiner or any competent authority certifying that the contents of the remaining bottles were also liquor.

The Court held that, in the absence of examination of the remaining bottles, the assumption that all 154 bottles contained liquor and that the total quantity exceeded five bulk litres was not supported by legally admissible material. It observed that confiscation of a vehicle is a serious consequence affecting proprietary rights and, therefore, the statutory conditions precedent for exercise of such power must be strictly established.

The Court further found that the Collector and the Excise Commissioner had proceeded on the assumption that the entirety of the seized substance was liquor without properly considering the deficiencies in the evidence, whereas the Sessions Judge had correctly appreciated the material on record.

Accordingly, finding no illegality or perversity in the order of the Sessions Judge, the Court dismissed the State's criminal revision and affirmed the order setting aside the confiscation of the vehicle.

Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Shravan Kumar Yadav @ Suraj [CRR No. 637 of 2018].

Click Here To Read/Download Order