Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act | Motorcycle Can't Be Held To Have Been 'Used To Carry' Illicit Liquor If It Is Merely Recovered From Rider: High Court

The Patna High Court recently held that under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, a motorcycle cannot be considered as having been 'used' to transport illicit liquor if it was found in the possession of the individuals riding it.The division bench of Justices PB Bajantari and Jintendra Kumar observed, “Coming to the case at hand, no intoxicant or liquor was recovered from the motorcycle of the petitioner. Only 180 ML liquor was recovered from pant of the petitioner. In such situation, the motorcycle cannot be held to have been used to carry the illicit liquor which was recovered from the person of the petitioner. The word 'use' cannot be given liberal or expansive meaning. It has to be interpreted strictly as it has penal consequences.”Calling it a classic illustration of how the people are being harassed by concerned State officials in the name of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the bench added, “But the confiscation authority confiscated the vehicle in question by the impugned order. Even the Appellate Authority did not correct the wrong and upheld the confiscation order. Even the Revisional Authority did not do full justice, directing release of the vehicle only after payment of 50% of the insurance value of the motorcycle. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court incurring further expense on litigation. This case is a classic illustration of how the people are being harassed by concerned State officials in the name of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.”The relevant facts of the case, as emerging from the record, were that while the petitioner was riding on a motorcycle, he was stopped by the police on suspicion and on search, 180 ML of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was recovered from the pants of the petitioner. Subsequently, the alleged illicit liquor and the vehicle in question were seized and an FIR was registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, a Confiscation Case was initiated by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saharsa, wherein, initially, the motorcycle of the petitioner was released provisionally in favour of the petitioner, but subsequently, the motorcycle in question was confiscated and directed to be auctioned. The petitioner was later also directed by the Revisional Authority to pay 50% of the insurance value of the vehicle to the StateIt was argued by the petitioner that the vehicle in question was in no way used in the transportation of alleged seized contraband, and the vehicle in question cannot be said to be used in carrying the illicit liquor. It was further argued that in fact, no recovery of illicit liquor was made from the possession of the petitioner, and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police. In fact, the vehicle in question was seized from the house of the petitioner. It was also argued that the vehicle was no way liable for any seizure and confiscation, and the petitioner was entitled to return of the vehicle with compensation for violation of his constitutional right and expenditure on forced litigation.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and rival submissions of the parties, the legal questions which arose for consideration by the Court were whether the vehicle in question was liable to be seized and confiscated and whether the petitioner was liable to pay 50% of the insurance value of the vehicle to the State as directed by the Revisional Authority or the petitioner was entitled to return of the vehicle with compensation.Before considering the rival submissions of the parties, the Court considered it imperative to examine the relevant statutory provisions including Sections 56, 57B, 58, 61, 92, 93, 95 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.After it's analysis of the above, the Court opined, “The first and foremost thing, which emerges from the aforesaid discussion of the statutory provisions, is that no vehicle can be seized or confiscated without its use in commission of any offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.”“Under Section 30 of the Act, transport of illicit liquor or intoxicant is an offence and in commission of such offence, a vehicle can be used. As such, use of the vehicle in transport of illicit liquor/intoxicant is sine qua non for its seizure and confiscation,” the Court added.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Court observed that all the impugned orders were arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further observed that they are also violative of the Constitutional right of the petitioner to hold property as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution, which prohibits any deprivation of property without authority of law. The Court held, “The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act no way authorises the official to seize or confiscate the vehicle in the alleged facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the seizure and confiscation of the motorcycle...

Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act | Motorcycle Can't Be Held To Have Been 'Used To Carry' Illicit Liquor If It Is Merely Recovered From Rider: High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act | Motorcycle Can't Be Held To Have Been 'Used To Carry' Illicit Liquor If It Is Merely Recovered From Rider: High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers