[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Bimlesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 18 December, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19659 of 2025
======================================================
Bimlesh Kumar S/o Braj Nandan Sharma, Resident of East Laxmi Nagar
Khemanichak, P.S.- Ram Krishna Nagar, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Prohibition and Excise Govt. of
Bihar at Patna.
2. The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
3. The Commissioner Excise Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Commissioner Excise (Headquarter) Bihar, Patna.
5. The Assistant Commissioner Excise, B.S.B.C.L. Bihar Prohibition and
Excise and Registration Department Sandalpur Road Kumharar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Satyendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Archana Meenakshee, GP-6
Mr. Rana Veer Prawar, AC to GP-6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 18-12-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned GP-6 for the State.
2. The petitioner in this case is seeking release of
his vehicle (Innova Crysta Car) bearing registration no.
BR01HM-5806, Engine No. 2GDA779788 and Chassis No.
MBJJB8EM101656705-0124, which has been seized in
connection with Excise Patna P.S. Case No. 336 of 2025
registered on 03.03.2025 for offence alleged under Sections
Patna High Court CWJC No.19659 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
2/8
30(a) & 56(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and
Amendment Act, 2022.
3. The petitioner in the present case is seeking to
challenge the order passed by the Revisional Authority in
Excise Revision Case No. 24 of 2025, whereby and
whereunder the Revisional Authority has refused to interfere
with the appellate order and the confiscation order passed by
the Assistant Commissioner, Excise in Vehicle (Acquisition)
Case No. 212 of 2025-26. It is submitted that the vehicle in
question was seized in connection with Excise Patna P.S. Case
No. 336 of 2025, dated 03.03.2025, for allegedly carrying
198.720 litres of liquors. The Confiscating Authority has,
though, directed for release of the vehicle in terms of Rule
12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules 2021 as
amended up to date on payment of 10% of the insured value,
plus 3% thereof, the grievance of the petitioner is that neither
the Confiscating Authority nor the Appellate and Revisional
Authority has duly considered the case of the petitioner,
wherein it is specific ground of the petitioner that the vehicle
in question was stolen away from his possession and in this
connection he had lodged Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 788 of
2024, dated 8.10.2024, registered under Section 303(2) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19659 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
3/8
B.N.S., 2023. He had pointed out that the actual registration
number of the vehicle is BR01HM-5806, but the person who
had stolen away the vehicle had changed the number plate of
the vehicle and the number placed on the vehicle was bearing
BR01FQ0101. Learned counsel has relied upon a Division
Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Bittu Kumar
Gupta v. the State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 13174
of 2025), decided on 14.11.2025, wherein this Hon'ble Court
has taken a view that in case of a stolen vehicle, where the
vehicle owner has not played any role in commission of any
offence and is not an accused, he cannot be burdened with the
penalty.
4. Learned GP-6 for the State submits that since
the vehicle in question had been found carrying
approximately 198.720 liter of liquor, the confiscating
authority has taken a view based on a decision of this court in
the case of Ramprakash Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar
and Others (CWJC No. 11678 of 2022) decided on
02.09.2022
and directed imposition of penalty of 10% of the
insured value of the vehicle. Learned GP-6, however, accepts
at the bar that the competent authority has no power to impose
an additional 3% over and above the penalty amount. In her
Patna High Court CWJC No.19659 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
submissions, the impugned order, insofar as it directs payment
of 3% over and above the penalty amount, may be set aside.
However, the rest of the order be allowed to remain.
Consideration
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned GP-6 for the state, we have gone through the
impugned orders. In the revisional order dated 18.09.2025, the
revisional authority has categorically observed that on perusal
of the F.I.R of Shastri Nagar P.S Case No. 788 of 2024, it is
evident that the vehicle in question was stolen away.
6. The revisional authority has also observed that
in the said case, there is no involvement of the petitioner, but
having said so, he has refused to interfere with the order
passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority
on the ground that it cannot be denied that the vehicle was
being used in transportation of illicit liquor.
7. To this Court, it appears that the fact that the
vehicle in question was a stolen vehicle and a false number
plate was found placed on that when it was intercepted and
liquors were found on the same are important facts which
cannot be ignored. The vehicle is the property of its owner
and a confiscation proceeding being essentially in the nature
Patna High Court CWJC No.19659 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
of a civil proceeding, the owner of the vehicle may be
deprived of his property only if it is found that he is involved
in the commission of the offence with the help of the said
vehicle. In fact, in the case of Amarjeet Yadav v. State of
Bihar and Others (C.W.J.C. No. 9517 of 2023), a learned
coordinate Bench of this court has observed in paragraph 24
of its judgment as under:-
24. Similarly, there may be a
situation where a vehicle has been stolen or robed
by criminal to carry intoxicant or liquor. In such
situation also, it cannot be contended that there
was involvement or connivance of the owner in
commission of the offence under the Act. For
such illegal use of the vehicle, the owner of the
vehicle cannot be punished by seizure and
confiscation of the vehicle.
8. So far as the reliance placed by the respondent
authorities on the judgment of this court in the case of
Ramprakash Paswan (supra) is concerned, it is evident that
after the said judgment, the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Rules 2021 has been lastly amended vide Amendment Rules
2023 vide notification no. 3671 dated 31.05.2023. The
amended provision under Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 12A provides
some guidelines whereunder it is provided that 'Where the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19659 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
conveyance is such that its valuation/insurance is not possible,
the Collector or the officer authorized by him shall impose
such fine as he deems fit. While imposing such fine, the
Collector or the officer authorized by him shall have due
regard to the economic status of the individual, nature of his
involvement in the crime and the quantum of intoxicant
recovered'.
9. This court has no iota of doubt that the mandate
as contained in the second part of sub-rule (4) of Rule 12A
which provides for consideration of the economic status of the
individual and the nature of his involvement in the crime and
the quantum of intoxicant recovered are some of the factors
which would be required to be considered for purpose of
imposing the penalty. Whether it is based on the valuation
done by a valuer on the order of the Collector or it is based on
the insurance value is immaterial. The factors for
consideration remain the same. The nature of involvement of
the vehicle owner being an important guiding factor cannot be
ignored by the confiscating authority.
10. We, therefore, find that at the time of the
judgment, in the case of Ramprakash Paswan (supra), this
statutory provision was either not in existence or was not
Patna High Court CWJC No.19659 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
pointed out to this court.
11. In a result, we set aside the impugned orders
and direct the confiscating authority to pass a fresh order
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of
this order for release of the vehicle in question, keeping in
view the aforementioned mandate of law and the judicial
pronouncements on the subject.
12. It is made clear that the confiscating authority
has no power to impose an additional 3% over and above the
penalty amount. It is surprising that the confiscating authority
has directed the petitioner to deposit 3% of the penalty
amount, i.e., Rs. 5,698/- in the account of 'BSBCL', which we
understand as Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd. By no
stretch of imagination, the confiscating authority can assume
upon himself a power to impose penalty over and above what
has been sanctioned by the law. Recently, we have noticed
similar kind of order passed by the confiscating authority in
the district of Nalanda in the case of Shantanu Kumar v.
The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 18561 of 2025)
decided on 11.12.2025. Such imposition are wholly unjust
and improper. This is an act of undue enrichment caused to a
government company, which is not permissible.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19659 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
13. Let this order be brought to the notice of all
the District Magistrates in the State of Bihar and the officers
authorized by them who are dealing with the confiscating
matters not to impose an additional amount of penalty over
and above the penalty amount. Such penalties realized by the
confiscating authority in all other cases are liable to be
refunded within a period of 3 months from the date of
receipt/production of the copy of this order.
14. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 19.12.2025.
Transmission Date
