Khirod Kumar Singh vs State Of Odisha

S.K. Panigrahi, J

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Crl.Rev. No.15 of 2020 and further pleased to direct release of two-wheeler vehicle bearing

Registration No. OD-11-Q-0964 along with the seized documents in favour of the petitioner.

The fact of the case, in nutshell, is that on25.08.2020, the ‘Honda CB Shine’ motor cycle bearing Registration No.

OD-11-Q-0964 was used for transporting 30 liters of country I.D. liquor by petitioner and one Somnath Singh. It was detained near Haripur Chhak

under Baisinga P.S. by the Inspector of Excise, Udala Range, in charge of Betnoti Exicse Station. On being asked, they failed to produce any

document in support of said transportation of liquor. So, the motorcycle, I.D. and liquor were seized for contravention of the provisions contained

under Section 52(a) of the Odisha Excise Act. After seizure, the motorcycle was kept inside Betnoti Excise Office Campus.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provision of Section 71(1)(a) of the Odisha Excise Act provides that the Investigating Officer

must produce the seized vehicle before the Superintendent of Excise, Collector (Section 71(2)) or the Authorised Officer for the initiation of the

confiscation proceedings. In view of sub-section(3) of Section 71 of the Act, the Collector or the Authroised Officer, as the case may be, assumes

power to proceed with confiscation of the seized property either where the seizure has been effected by him or where the seized properties were

produced before him. A conjoint reading of sub-section (1)(a) and sub-section (3) of Section 71 of the Act would make it clear that although the

seizure can be made when there is a reason to believe that there is a commission of any offence under the Act, the same reason ipso facto will not

suffice for an order of confiscation of the seized property. The Collector or the Authorised Officer, as the case may be, before passing an order for

confiscation has to satisfy himself that an offence under the Act has been committed in respect of the property-in-question. The bar as contemplated

under Section 72 of the Act will come into play only when the Collector or the Authorised officer is satisfied in the matter of confiscation of any

property seized under Section 71 of the Act. Under sub-section (4) of Section 71 of the Act, no order confiscating any property shall be made unless

the person from whom the property is seized is given.

(a) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property;

(b) an opportunity of making representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice; and

(c) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

In the case at hand, the motorcycle was seized on 25. 08.2020 for its alleged use in commission of offence under Section 52(a) of the Odisha

Excise Act. As per the requisition dated 29.08.2020, the I.O. prayed for obtaining ownership particulars of the seized motorcycle from the RTO,

Mayurbhanj at Baripada. The report of RTO regarding ownership was received by the I.O. on 16.09.2020 and as per the case diary dated 29.

09.2020, the I.O., i.e., Inspector of Excise submitted report to the Superintendent of Excise, Mayurbhanj under Section 71(1)(3) & (7) of the Odisha

Excise Act. Learned Counsel further submits that the seized two-wheeler having not been produced before the Collector or Authorised Officer, and

there being no initiation of confiscation proceeding, the statutory bar under Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act could not have said to be in operation.

Learned counsel for State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has not co-operated with the authority.

Additionally, he has not appeared before the authority even after receiving several summons.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and records available, I am not inclined to allow the CRLMC. Hence, the

prayer for CRLMC is hereby rejected.

With the aforesaid order, this CRLMC stands disposed of.

However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Court of the Authorised Officer-cum-Superintendent of Excise, Mayurbhanj

within a period of fifteen days from today and make an application for hearing of the case. Thereafter, the said Officer in seisin over the matter shall

hear the matter and close the proceeding within a period of one month, if there is no impediment.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

……………………………………