Chattisgarh High Court
Pavan Kumar Khunte vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:13631
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 254 of 2025
1 - Pavan Kumar Khunte S/o Dandaram Khunte Aged About 36 Years R/o Village -
Dhangaon Police Station Bhatgaon District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh (Father
Name Correctly Mentioned As Per Annexure P/2)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate (Collector) District Sarangarh-
Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
21/03/2025
1. This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is directed
against the order dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
learned District Magistrate (Collector), District- Sarangarh-
Bilaigarh (C.G.).
2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of two
wheeler vehicle having registration no. CG 22 U 6410 which was
duly purchased by the petitioner and the petitioner is having all
the necessary documents of the vehicle. On 19.04.2022, the
Police Station Bhatgaon District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)
received secret information that the applicant was transporting
illicit liquor on his two wheeler having registration no. CG 22 U
6410. On the basis of said information the police has conducted a
raid and have seized total 5400 bulk litre illicit liquor and said
vehicle from the possession of the petitioner herein. The
petitioner on receiving show cause notice of confiscation issued
by the Collector on 01.08.2024 entered his appearance and
submitted an application for Supurdnama, but the application for
Supurdnama was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated
21.10.2024 which is against the settled principles of law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 47-A(2)
of the C.G. Excise Act very specifically hold that firstly the
Collector has to be satisfied that the offence covered under the
act has been committed and this satisfaction can only be reached
after the order of conviction by the trial court. He further
contended that as per the order sheet dated 06.06.2023 the
present applicant has already submitted a copy of the judgment
dated 05.06.2023 passed by the JMFC, Bhatgaon District-
Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) in connection with Crime No. 64/2022
and acquitted from all the false allegation which was framed
against the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State, would support the impugned order and submit
that vehicle has rightly been confiscated and appeal & revision
have rightly been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. As
such, concurrent findings recorded by three authorities are not
liable to be interfered with and the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the
records with utmost circumspection.
6. Section 47-A of the Act of 1915 was inserted in the Act of 1915 by
M.P.Act No.22 of 2000 w.e.f. 4.8.2000. Sub-section (2) of
Section 47-A of Act of 1915 provides for confiscation. It can
be exercised if Collector is satisfied that an offence covered
by clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 has
been committed and where the quantity of liquor found at the time
or in the course of detection of such offence exceeds fifty bulk
liters he may, on the ground to be recorded in writing, order the
confiscation of the intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils,
materials, conveyance etc. so seized.
7. Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of 1915 provides as
under:-
"(3) No order under sub-section (2) shall be made
unless the Collector has-
(a) sent an intimation in a form prescribed by the
Excise Commissioner about initiation of
proceedings for confiscation of seized intoxicants,
articles, implements, utensils, materials,
conveyance etc. to the court having jurisdiction to
try the offence on account of which the seizure
has been made;
(b) issued a notice in writing to the person from
whom such intoxicants, articles, implements,
utensils, materials, conveyance etc. have been
seized and to any person staking claim to it and to
any other person who may appear before the
Collector to have an interest in it;
(c) afforded an opportunity to the persons referred
to in clause-
(b) above of making a representation against
proposed confiscation;
(d) given to the officer effecting the seizure under
sub-section (1) and to the person or persons who
have been noticed under clause (b) a hearing."
8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that as
per clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of
1915, the Collector has to send an intimation in the form
prescribed by the Excise Commissioner about the initiation of
proceedings for confiscation of seized intoxicants, articles,
implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. to the Court
having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the
seizure has been made. The Collector is further obliged to issue a
notice in writing to the person from whom such intoxicants,
articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance etc. have
been seized and to any person staking claim to it and to any
other person who may appear before the Collector to have an
interest in it.
9. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Rajendra
Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P. and another has held that
issuance of notice to the driver or the person from whom vehicle
was seized is mandatory and order of confiscation passed without
hearing the person from whose possession the illicit liquor or
contraband is seized is illegal.
10. Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of 1915
provides an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b)
above of making a representation against proposed
confiscation.
11. In the matter of Khem Chand v. Union of India and others,
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India which provides that no person
shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has
been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against
action proposed to be taken in regard to him. It has been held that
an opportunity to make representation as to why the proposed
punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if
the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after
applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges
proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to
inflict one of the three punishments and observed as under:-
"19. To summarise: the reasonable opportunity
envisaged by the provision under consideration
includes:
(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish
his innocence, which he can only do if he is told
what the charges levelled against him are and the
allegations on which such charges are based;
(b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-
examining the witnesses produced against him
and by examining himself or any other witnesses
in support of his defence; and finally
(c) an opportunity to make his representation as
to why the proposed punishment should not be
inflected on him, which he can only do if the
competent authority, after the enquiry is over and
after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise
of the charges proved against the government
servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the
three punishments and communicates the same
to the government servant.
In short the substance of the protection provided
by rules, like R. 55 referred to above, was bodily
lifted out of the rules and together with an
additional opportunity embodied in S. 240(3) of
the Government of India Act, 1935 so as to give a
statutory protection to the government servants
and has now been incorporated in Art.311(2) so
as to convert the protection into a
constitutional safeguard."
12. Similarly, an opportunity to the person referred in clause (c) of
making a representation against proposed confiscation though it
is not specifically mentioned in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of
Section 47-A of the Act of 1915, that the material collected in
support of confiscation should also be supplied. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the supply of the material on the basis of
which opinion has been formed for confiscation of vehicle in
question is included in the opportunity as contemplated under
Section 47-A(3)(c) of the Act of 1915. To enable the person to
defend himself properly, it is necessary that the material on the
basis of which opinion has been formed would also be supplied.
13. Likewise, the Collector while confiscating the seized intoxicants,
articles, implements, utensils, materials, conveyance is also
obliged to give a hearing to the person mentioned in clause (b)
of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act of 1915.
14. The word 'hearing' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary,
6th page 721 as under:-
The introduction and admissibility of evidence is
usually mere lax in a hearing than in a civil or criminal
trial (see e.g. 42 U.S.C.A. $ 405(b) which provides for
admissibility of evidence at social security hearings
that would otherwise be inadmissible at regular trial).
Hearings are extensively employed by both legislative
and administrative agencies and can be adjudicative
or merely investigatory. Adjudicative hearings can be
appealed in a court of law. Congressional committees
often hold hearings prior to enactment of legislation;
these hearings are then important sources of
legislative history."
15. The Advanced Law Lexicon-2005th edition defines "hearing" as
the trial of a suit is called a "hearing" and technically considered,
this includes not only introduction of the evidence and
arguments of the counsels, but the pronouncing of the decree by
the presiding officer.
16. The Patna High Court in the matter of Sheikh Abdul Rahman v.
Shiblal Sahu and others defined the "hearing" as a judicial
session held for the purpose of deciding issues of fact or that of
law; in administrative law, presentment of argument by the
affected individual to the decision making authority.
17. In the matter of Kanaran Nambiar v. Ramunni Nambiar the
Kerala High Court has held that "hearing" as used in the Code of
Civil Procedure does not mean the 'hearing of arguments' only. It
refers to all the stages of the trial of a suit namely, the settling of
issues, taking of evidence and hearing of arguments or 'other
proceedings tendency to a final adjudication of the suit.
18. Thus, in the light of legal provisions noticed hereinabove and
conditions precedent for passing the order of confiscation and
principles of law noticed, it is quite vivid that before confiscating
the seized intoxicants, articles, implements, utensils, materials,
conveyance etc. as mentioned in Section 47-A (3) (a) of the Act
of 1915, the Collector is obliged to send an intimation in the
prescribed form about the initiation of proceedings for
confiscation of seized articles to the court having jurisdiction to
try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.
The Collector is further obliged to issue a notice in writing to the
person from whom such intoxicants, articles, implements,
utensils, materials, conveyance etc. have been seized and to
any person staking claim to and to any other person who may
appear before the Collector to have an interest in it and
thereafter he has to afford an opportunity to the persons referred
to in clause (b) of making a representation against proposed
confiscation and lastly, he is obliged to give a hearing to the
officer effecting the seizure under sub-section (1) and to the
person or persons who have been noticed under clause (b) a
hearing.
19. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid
principle of law noticed hereinabove, it is quite vivid that the
petitioner is registered owner of the said vehicle, but the
Collector while confiscating the proposed vehicle only issued
show-cause notice. The petitioner on receiving show cause
notice of confiscation issued by the Collector on 01.08.2024
entered his appearance and submitted an application for
Supurdnama, but the application for Supurdnama was dismissed
by the Collector vide order dated 21.10.2024.
20. As such, it appears that neither the petitioner was given
documents in support of seized article by the Collector nor he
was given any material relied upon by the State and only an
opportunity to file reply and written submission was granted. No
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to adduce any
evidence in support of his case. No evidence was even led by
the officer seizing the said vehicle, as such, order of confiscation
is clearly in teeth of the provisions contained in Section 47-A (3)
(a) to (d) of the Act of 1915. The petitioner was not afforded an
opportunity by the Collector to make a representation against
proposed confiscation nor he was allowed to lead evidence. As
such, clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A
of the Act of 1915 have been followed by the Collector in its
breach, which is apparent and evident from perusal of the
confiscation proceedings.
21. Consequently, it is held that order dated 01.08.2024 of
confiscation passed by the Collector District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh
(C.G.) in connection with Crime No. 64/2022 is clearly in teeth of
the provisions contained in Section 47-A(3) (a) to (d) of the Act
of 1915 and as such, it is liable to be set aside and is hereby set
aside. The petitioner's vehicle be released forthwith.
22. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. is allowed to the extent
sketched hereinabove.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
Madhurima
