Mere use of vehicle while carrying illegal liquor not sufficient to confiscate vehicle: Patna High Court

Mere use of a vehicle to carry liquor or other intoxicants does not always warrant the confiscation of such a vehicle under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, the Patna High Court recently held [Sunaina v The State of Bihar and Others]..A division bench of Justices PB Bajantari and Jintendra Kumar explained that no vehicle can be so seized or confiscated unless it is used for the commission of any offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. “Just use of the vehicle to carry intoxicant or liquor is also not sufficient for its seizure and confiscation. The involvement or connivance of the owner of the vehicle in such illegal use of the vehicle is also an essential prerequisite for confiscation of the vehicle or imposing any penalty for release of the vehicle,” the Court said.The Court added that there may be a possibility of a situation where the driver of a vehicle may be carrying a small quantity of contraband in his clothes like in the pocket of a shirt or pants.“In such situation also, it would be completely erroneous to hold that vehicle was being used for carrying the contraband,” the Court said..The Court made the observation while ordering the payment of ₹1 lakh as compensation to a woman whose two-wheeler was confiscated in connection with recovery of liquor in the dry State of Bihar. The woman’s vehicle was confiscated after the recovery of 13.9 liters of illicit liquor from a pillion rider. A similar order was passed in the another case wherein 180 ML of liquor was recovered from the pants of a motorcycle rider before his vehicle was seized. “This case is a classic illustration of how the people are being harassed by concerned State officials in the name of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016," the Court observed..By two orders passed on January 30, the Court directed the immediate release of the two motorcycles after it concluded that the liquor was not recovered from the vehicles but from the clothes of a rider and a bag.“The petitioner, whose constitutional right to property has been violated, is entitled to adequate compensation. He is also entitled to compensation on account of expenditure and harassment in course of forced litigations,” the Court added.The similarly-worded orders were passed on two separate petitions filed by the vehicle owners, Sunaina and Binit Kumar..Sunaina had approached the Court seeking the quashing of a Collector’s refusal to release the motorcycle which had been seized in connection with an excise case registered in 2020.The case in question was registered after Sunaina’s husband Satyendra Kumar and Sunil Yadav (who was seated on the pillion) were stopped by the police while they were en route on a bike. The police recovered 13.9 litres of illicit liquor from a bag being carried by Yadav.The motorcycle was found to be registered in Sunaina's name.Before the High Court, her counsel contended that a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act can be confiscated only if it is found to be used in the commission of any offence and if the owner is also found involved. However, as per prosecution itself, the liquor was recovered from the bag of pillion rider and not from any part of the motorcycle, the Court was told..Similarly, Kumar’s motorcycle was seized after recovery of 180 ML liquor in 2017. While the vehicle was provisionally released to him in 2019 after the High Court’s intervention, it was again confiscated later and directed to be auctioned. The appellate authority, in revision, allowed the motorcycle’s release only on payment of 50 percent of its insurance value. Kumar chose to challenge the decision before the High Court..In Sunaina’s case, the Court found no allegation that any contraband was kept or concealed in any part of the motorcycle. Rather, it noted that the liquor was seized from the bag kept by the pillion rider in his hand.“In such situation, it would be erroneous to hold that the motorcycle was used to carry the contraband. The word 'use' cannot be interpreted liberally giving expansive meaning. It has to be interpreted strictly as it has penal consequences. Even the object and scheme of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act does not warrant expansive interpretation,” said the Court.Similarly in Kumar’s case, the Court noted that the liquor was not recovered from the motorcycle. .The Court concluded that the decision to seize both vehicles was violative of the right of the petitioners to hold property under Article 300A of the Constitution.The Court, therefore, quashed the orders under challenge and ordered the District Collectors of Gopalganj and Saharsa to release the motorcycles and pay ₹1 lakh each to the petitioners within 10 days..Advocate Bhola Kumar represented the petitioner, Sunaina. Advocate Diwakar Prasad Singh represented the petitioner, Binit Kumar.Advocates Shama Sinha, Vivek Prasad and Supragya represented the respondents..[Read Judgments]