[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Balaram Swain vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 3 December, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.946 of 2025
Balaram Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. J.Behera, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K.Ray, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
03.12.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned order at Annexure-2 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No.59
of 2025 by the learned JMFC, Ranpur arising out of 2(a) C.C.
Case No. 38 of 2025, corresponding to P.R. No.66 of 2025-26
received from Ranpur Excise Station, whereby an application
under Section 503 BNSS seeking interim custody and release of
the seizure vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-25-J-1351 in his
favour was declined.
3. Referring to an order of this Court in Pratima
Dalabehera Vrs. State of Odisha in CRLREV No.262 of 2024
dated 21st June, 2024, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the vehicle should be released in the custody of
the petitioner as an interim measure. A copy of the judgment in
Ratnakar Behera Vrs. State 2020 (III) ILR-CUT-172 referred
to therein is also placed reliance on to contend that
notwithstanding any such initiation of the confiscation
proceeding, the alleged vehicle should not be detained, wherein,
this Court by a Co-ordinate bench has taken judicial notice of the
other decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
Vrs. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283 and hence, under such
circumstances, the petitioner being the owner, should be allowed
to receive to the interim custody of the vehicle in question.
4. An objection is received from Mr. Ray, learned AGA for
the State on the ground that the initiation of the confiscation
proceeding itself stands as a bar under Section 72 of the Odisha
Excise Act and hence, the learned court below did not commit
any serious error or legality denying release vide Annexure-2.
5. Since a view is expressed by the Court in Ratnakar
Behera case to maintain judicial discipline and propriety and as
it is followed subsequently in Pratima Dalabehera (supra), the
Court is of the view that the vehicle seized in connection with
the case should be released in favour of the petitioner subject to
proof of its ownership shown by him. In other words, such
release of the vehicle should be directed and it shall abide by the
decision in the confiscation proceeding stated to be pending at
present having regard to the decision in Ratnakar Behera and
keeping in view of the ratio decided by the Apex Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra).
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-1 in Crl. Misc.
Case No.59 of 2025 by learned JMFC, Ranpur is hereby set aside
with a direction to immediately release the seizure vehicle
bearing Registration No. OD-25-J-1351 in favour of the
petitioner subject to suitable conditions and proof of ownership
with an undertaking furnished by him to the effect that such
release shall abide by the decision on confiscation.
8. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Kabita
