Sanjay Ray vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 119 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9896 of 2020
     ======================================================

Sanjay Ray, Son of Baban Ray, R/o Village- Khabsi, P.S.- Baniapur, District- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.

3. District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra.

5. The Superintendent of Excise, Saran at Chapra.

6. The Officer in- Charge of Baniapur, P.S.- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 13-01-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

"That this application is being filed for issuance of a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs directing the respondents to open the lock of seized Grocery ware house of the petitioner situated in village Khabsi, P.S. Baniapur, District Saran at Chapra as well as to release the money Rs.14200/- (Fourteen thousand two hundred only) been seized by locking the Grocery shop and taking money of sale process of shop in connection with Baniapur P.S. Case No. 335/2017 on 10/12/2017 for the offence U/S-272/273 I.P.C. & section 30 & 30(a) of Bihar Excise Prohibition Act 2016 for recovery of 5 liters country made liquor and Rs.14000/- Patna High Court CWJC No.9896 of 2020 dt.13-01-2021

(Fourteen thousand two hundred only cash from the Grocery shop in question. Which is pending in the court of Special Court Excise, Saran at Chapra."

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the

petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated

22.12.2020, passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9592 of

2020 (Dharmendra Mahto versus The State of Bihar).

In the case of Dharmendra Mahto (supra) this Court

has referred and discussed all the previous case laws on the

subject. Some of the judgments rendered in similar matters are

as under:-

(i) Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,

reported in 2020(3) PLJR 927.

(ii) Umesh Sah Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.,

reported in 2020(3) PLJR 931.

(iii) Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah Vs. The State of

Bihar & Ors., reported in 2020(3) PLJR 935.

The operative part of the judgment in the case of Md.

Shaukat Ali (supra) is being briefly reproduced as under:-

"(a) Since the vehicle in question stands seized in relation to the FIR which stood registered long ago, in case confiscation proceeding has not been initiated, it must be initiated within a period of 15 days from today and that confiscation proceeding stands initiated, we direct the appropriate authority under the Act to forthwith ensure that such proceedings be concluded not later than 30 days.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9896 of 2020 dt.13-01-2021

(b) The petitioner undertakes to make himself available in the office of the concerned appropriate authority empowered under Section 58 of the Act i.e. District Collector, in his/her office on 24.01.2020 at 10:30 A.M.

(c) We further direct the appropriate authority to positively conclude the confiscation proceeding within next thirty days on appearance of the petitioner. If for whatever reason, such proceeding cannot be concluded, in that event it shall be open for the authority to take such measures, as are permissible in law, for release of the vehicle in question by way of interim measure, on such terms as may be deemed appropriate, considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) If eventually, the appropriate authority arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to be confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek damages in accordance with law and have appropriate proceedings initiated against the erring officials/officers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the certified copy of the order shall be made available to the concerned District Collector on the date so fixed.

For future guidance, where parties have not approached this Court, we issue the following direction:-

The expression "reasonable delay" used in Section 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered view, necessarily has to be within a reasonable time and with dispatch, which period, in our considered view, three months time is sufficient enough for any authority to adjudicate any issue, more so, when we are dealing with confiscatory proceedings."

The aforesaid directions were reiterated in the case of

Umesh Sah (supra). Once again in the case of Bunilal Sah @

Munilal Sah (supra) this Court dealt in detail the various

provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act or the Act of 2016).

In the recent judgment rendered by this Court in the Patna High Court CWJC No.9896 of 2020 dt.13-01-2021

case of Dharmendra Mahto (supra) this Court has issued further

directions:-

"It is seen that till date, in large number of cases, position about conclusion of the proceedings, be it under Section 58, 92 or 93 remains the same.

We further direct that all proceedings under Section 58 must positively be initiated/concluded within a period of ninety days from the date of appearance of the parties. Further, Appeal/Revision, if any, be also decided within a period of thirty days from the date of initiation, failing which the "things" (vehicle/property/ etc.) shall be deemed to have been released in terms of several orders passed by this Court, reference whereof stands mentioned in Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah (supra).

Wherever confiscatory proceedings stand concluded and parties could not file the appeal/revision within the statutory period of limitation, as already stands directed in several matters, if they were to initiate such proceedings within next thirty days, the plea of limitation would not come in their way of adjudication of such proceedings on merit."

We find that the direction issued by this Court in the

aforementioned cases are equally applicable in the facts of the

present case. The F.I.R./prosecution report was lodged/filed on

10.12.2017, and the Grocery ware-house of the petitioner

situated in Village- Khabsi, P.S.- Baniapur, District- Saran at

Chapra was sealed and Rs. 14,200/- seized. Confiscation

proceeding has not been initiated as yet.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9896 of 2020 dt.13-01-2021

Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to

make himself/herself available on 29.01.2021 at 10:30 A.M.

before the appropriate authority which may be in the attending

facts, the Collector of the Saran at Chapra District. If the

Collector is not himself/herself dealing with the matter on

account of delegation of power or assignment of work to

another officer of his/her District, he/she shall fix a date

directing the parties to appear before the said officer, which date

shall be not exceeding one week. Also, he/she shall inform the

said authority of fixing of such date. On appearance of the

petitioner through his/her learned Advocate, the appropriate

authority shall consider passing any order/interim order, as the

case may be, in terms of the direction of this Court.

We clarify that convenience of parties, specially

during the time of Pandemic Covid-19 is of prime importance

and it shall be open for the authority to hear the parties with the

use of technology, i.e. Video Conferencing facility etc.

We only hope and expect that the Authorities under

the Act shall take appropriate action at the earliest and in

accordance with law, within the time schedule fixed, failing

which the vehicle/property/things liable for confiscation shall be

deemed to have been released without any further reference to Patna High Court CWJC No.9896 of 2020 dt.13-01-2021

this Court.

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to

such remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law

if the need so arises subsequently.

Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observations/directions.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

( Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Ashwini/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          15.01.2021
Transmission Date