CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has ruled that mere seizure of liquor from a vehicle cannot automatically justify its confiscation. The Excise authorities must independently establish the circumstances of its use in an alleged offence before depriving an owner of his property.
Setting aside the order for confiscation of a car seized in an Excise case on November 6, Justice Sashikanta Mishra said the authorities cannot rely solely on seizure records and reports of the seizing officer without properly examining the vehicle owner’s defence.
Justice Mishra made the observations while considering a petition filed by Umesh Patra, challenging the confiscation of his Maruti Suzuki Celerio after Excise officials allegedly seized 68 bottles containing around 51 litre of non-duty-paid Indian-made foreign liquor (IMFL) from its rear dickey near Gohira Bridge under Jamda police station limits in Mayurbhanj district.
Patra claimed that the bags belonged to a co-passenger who had sought a lift and told him they contained marriage articles. He maintained that he had no knowledge of the liquor allegedly carried in the vehicle.
The court held that seizure and confiscation are two distinct legal processes under Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. While seizure can be made on the basis of a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed, confiscation requires independent satisfaction of the competent authority.
Holding that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice and the requirement of a fair inquiry, Justice Mishra declined to send the matter back for another reconsideration.
Justice Mishra quashed the confiscation orders passed by the authorised officer on July 16, 2025, and the commissioner of Excise on August 13, 2026. It quashed the entire proceedings and directed the competent authority to take necessary steps to release the vehicle to Patra.
Referring to Article 300-A of the Constitution, Justice Mishra observed that deprivation of property must be strictly in accordance with law. “Mere seizure of a vehicle in connection with an alleged excise offence cannot, by itself, justify its confiscation,” the court said.
The judge also pointed out that the official seizure witnesses had not been examined despite the owner’s specific denial of knowledge about the bags. The HC further clarified that the owner’s signature on the seizure list cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of his knowledge or connivance. Similarly, a chemical examination report may establish the nature of the seized substance but cannot establish the owner’s knowledge or involvement.
It also found that the commissioner of Excise had also failed to address these deficiencies despite an earlier High Court direction to reconsider the appeal.
