Orissa High Court
Subrat Nayak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 23 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.769 of 2025
Subrat Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. P. Beura, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
23.10.2025
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.214 of 2025 by the learned J.M.F.C. II (Cog. Taking),
Cuttack arising out of 2(a) C.C. Case No.172 of 2023
corresponding to P.R. No.218 of 2023-24 received from EI &
EB, Unit II, Cuttack, whereby, an application under Section
403 BNSS seeking interim custody and release of the seizure
vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-05-BF-9625 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-2 in CMC
No.214 of 2025 by learned J.M.F.C. II (Cog. Taking), Cuttack
is hereby set aside with a direction to immediately release the
seizure vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-05-BF-9625 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
Balaram
Designation: Personal Assistant
