Orissa High Court
Panikrao Mahanandia vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 25 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.923 of 2025
Sil
Panikrao Mahanandia .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Sahoo. ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
25.11.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned rejection order dated 22nd August, 2025 as at
Annnexure-3 passed in CMC No.15 of 2025 by the learned
GNA-cum-J.M.F.C., Komna arising out of 2(a)CC No.175 of
2025, whereby, an application under Section 506 BNSS
seeking interim release and custody of the seized vehicle a
Truck bearing Registration No.OD-18-F-9628 in his favour has
been declined.
3. Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he is
not an accused and was having no knowledge about the illicit
transportation of the contraband substance. The further
submission is that the alleged vehicle is detained by the Excise
police in connection with an offence committed punishable
under Section 52(a) of Odisha Excise Act. The submission is
that the petitioner as the owner approached the learned Court
below with an application under Section 503 BNSS demanding
release of the seizure vehicle as an interim measure but it has
led to the passing of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3. The
further submission is that the vehicle is lying exposed to sun
and rain and likely to be damaged, hence, therefore, it should
have been allowed in favour of the petitioner being the owner
but has been rejected. Referring to the case laws in Ashis
Ranjan Mohanty (Adv.) Vrs. State of Odisha and others in
W.P.(C) No.31622 of 2021 dated 31st January, 2021 and
decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vrs.
State of Gujarat 2002 (10) SCC 283, it is submitted by Mr.
Bhanjadeo, learned counsel that immediate release of the
vehicle should be directed in the interest of justice.
4. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, on the other
hand, submits that the impugned order of rejection dated 22 nd
August, 2025 i.e. Annexure-3 is on the ground that the
confiscation proceeding has been initiated in respect of the
seizure vehicle and therefore, the interim release and custody of
the same has been rightly declined in view of Section 72 of the
Orissa Excise Act as it is subject to confiscation and in that
connection, the petitioner has received a notice from the
authority concerned.
5. In Ashis Ranjan Mohanty (supra), this Court laid
down the guidelines dealing with disposal of the seizure articles
including conveyances. In so far as the petitioner's case is
concerned, he is the owner of the vehicle in question and did
not have the knowledge regarding the illicit transportation of
liquor therein. Whether, the petitioner had the knowledge or
otherwise is to the gone into the confiscation proceeding which
is stated to be initiated. A vehicle is liable to be confiscation
provided the owner had the connivance or he was possessed of
the knowledge about the illicit transportation or failed to offer a
reasonable excuse against such use of vehicle, an aspect, which
is to be examined by the Confiscating Authority. It is made to
suggest that the confiscation proceeding has been initiated vis-
à-vis the seized vehicle. According to Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC,
the petitioner has been issued with notice to respond to the
confiscation of the vehicle. Irrespective of the above, having
regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai
Ambala Desai (supra) and a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench
in Ratnakar Behera Vrs. State of Odisha in CRLMC No.985
of 2020 decided on 5th August, 2020, the Court is of the view
that the seizure vehicle should be released in favour of the
petitioner with suitable conditions. A vehicle which is kept idle
for long time gets damaged quickly and therefore, though,
considering the fact that the seizure vehicle is owned by the
petitioner in respect of which confiscation proceeding has been
initiated, it would be just and proper if the same is released as
an interim measure keeping in view the decision in Ratnakar
Behera (supra) with a condition that any such release shall
abide by the decision of the Confiscating Authority. Such a
course of action is allowed in order to avoid the vehicle being
exposed to the vagarious of climate conditions, which is, hence,
to be released as detention of the same is not likely to benefit
anyone including the State.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 22nd August,
2025 at Annexure-3 is hereby set aside with a direction to the
learned GNA-cum-J.M.F.C., Komna to immediately release the
seizure vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-18-F-9628 in
connection with 2(a) CC No.175 of 2025 by imposing suitable
conditions with a rider that such release and custody in favour
of the petitioner shall be subject to decision of the Confiscating
Authority.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
