"When Can They Take Your Vehicle? Liquor Law and Property Rights"

 

This court case from the Patna High Court in India revolves around the seizure and confiscation of a motorcycle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The Petitioner, Amarjeet Yadav, challenged the legality of the confiscation of his motorcycle, arguing that it was carried out without proper legal authority.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on September 28, 2022, when police officers on patrol stopped two individuals on an Apache motorcycle and a Scorpio vehicle. During the search, illicit liquor was found in both the Scorpio and a bag carried by the pillion rider on the motorcycle. Following this discovery, a case was registered under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and confiscation proceedings were initiated for the vehicles involved.

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj, ordered the confiscation of the motorcycle, believing it was used in the transportation of the illicit liquor. This decision was upheld by the appellate authority and later by the revisional authority, which stated that the owner of the motorcycle failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how the liquor was found on the vehicle.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Petitioner, Amarjeet Yadav, argued that the confiscation order was illegal and violated Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to property. He contended that the Act requires proof that the vehicle was used in the commission of an offense with the owner's involvement. Yadav emphasized that the liquor was found in a bag carried by the pillion rider and not on the motorcycle itself, and that he, as the owner, was not involved in the alleged offense.

Respondent’s Defense

The Respondent, representing the state, defended the confiscation order, asserting that under the facts and the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the vehicle was legally seized and confiscated.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Patna High Court, after considering the arguments and evidence, focused on the legal question of whether the vehicle was liable to be seized and confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The court reviewed several sections of the Act and related rules, including those pertaining to the presumption of offense, penalties for allowing premises to be used for an offense, confiscation of seized items, and procedures for release and confiscation of vehicles.

The court emphasized that for a vehicle to be confiscated under the Act, it must be proven to have been used in the commission of an offense, such as transporting illicit liquor. The involvement or knowledge of the vehicle's owner in the illegal activity is also a critical factor.

The court referenced previous judgments, including Mohammad Basim Akram vs. State of Bihar, where it was held that a vehicle could not be confiscated if the owner had no knowledge of the illicit liquor being transported. The court also used hypothetical situations, such as a vehicle being stolen or a passenger carrying contraband in public transport without the owner's knowledge, to illustrate that the mere presence of illicit items in a vehicle does not automatically justify its confiscation.

In the specific case, the court noted that the liquor was found in a bag carried by the pillion rider and not concealed within the motorcycle. The Petitioner, the motorcycle owner, was not riding the vehicle and was not implicated in the offense. The court concluded that the necessary conditions for the vehicle's confiscation under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, were not met, as there was no evidence that the motorcycle was used to transport the liquor with the owner's consent or involvement.

Decision and Orders

The Patna High Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, quashing the confiscation order. The court directed the District Collector, Gopalganj, to immediately release the motorcycle and to pay the Petitioner Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the illegal confiscation, harassment, and litigation expenses.

Legal Implications

This judgment clarifies the interpretation and application of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, particularly concerning the confiscation of vehicles. It underscores the importance of proving the vehicle's use in the commission of an offense and the owner's involvement or knowledge. The decision also highlights the court's commitment to protecting citizens' property rights and ensuring that legal procedures are strictly followed. 

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjOTUxNyMyMDIzIzEjTg==-29RoxiafiGI=