Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The petition has been filed at the High Court of Patna by the petitioner praying for relief-relief-
The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petition should be disposed of in terms of orders passed on 09-01-2020 as done in cases dealt with the High Court of Patna of nature similar to the present case, Md. Shaukat Ali v. the State of Bihar and Umesh Sah v. The State of Bihar and ors.
The learned counsel for the respondent has no further objection to the petition.
The Act prohibits the transportation, distribution, sale, storage, purchase, consumption and manufacture of any liquor or intoxicating substance unless allowed in terms of the Act(Sec 13).
Apart from the penalty which is imposed by the State for committing such an offence, Sec 56 of the Act has laid down the procedure for the High Court of Patna dated 23rd June 2020, for the confiscation of things used for commission of such offence.
Power to issue an order of appropriation lies with the Authorized Officer or District Collector under Sec 58, who upon receipt of the report of seizing officer is required to pass an order.
The High Court of Patna has been swamped with several petitions on account of non-initiation of proceedings of confiscation or passing of illegal orders. The High Court of Patna has been passing several orders from time to time.
Under Sec 58 of chapter 6 of the Act, the expression "reasonable delay" is considered to be within a reasonable period and with time to conclude the proceeding should be 3 months, which is enough for any authority in charge of dealing with the confiscatory proceedings. The direction was laid down in Umesh sah Verma v. The State of Bihar and others by the High Court of Patna on 14th January 2020.
The directions used in Sec 58 of chapter 6 of the Act, was repeated in Umesh Sah v. The State of Bihar and others on 14th January 2020. Since the respondent has failed to comply with the orders passed by the High Court of Patna order dated 29th Jan 2020, directed by a recording of the entire history, directed the state to file an affidavit for not initiating the proceedings for contempt.
The Court after hearing both the parties and with the consent of both the parties decided that the Writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner prays for the release of the vehicle which has been seized for the offence punishable under Sec 427 and 279 of IPC and Sec 37(b)(c) of the Act.
In the case of Md. Shaukat Ali v. State of Bihar order dated 9th Jan 2020 issued a direction that without adjudicating the petition on merits, the Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be best met if the petition disposed of in following terms
It is a common practice of the Patna High Court that in case of drunken driving, where there has been no recovery of alcohol or the recovery is less than the commercial quality of alcohol or intoxicating substance, the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated and where there is a delay in confiscating the vehicle, the Court has directed the state for temporary release subject to the conclusion of the proceeding.
In the case of Manish Kunar Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar, the Court has held that, if the appellant prefers not to appeal within the said statutory period which has been directed by the court, the authority can decide on the property including putting in on the sale and with the outcome of the special leave petition in case of the state of Bihar v. Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies including the petitioner will be at liberty to take the option of such remedies as per the law.
On 23rd June 2020, the High Court of Patna said that they hope to expect that the authorities shall take appropriate action at the earliest and as per the law and within the period, failing which the property will be released.
86540
103860
630
114
59824