The Odisha High Court has ruled that recovering liquor from a vehicle does not by itself justify confiscating the vehicle, directing excise authorities to establish how the property was used in an alleged offence before depriving its owner of it.
Justice Sashikanta Mishra quashed confiscation proceedings against a car seized in an excise case and directed the competent authority to take steps to release it to its registered owner. The court also criticised the failure to examine relevant seizure witnesses and assess a disputed factual defence before passing the confiscation orders.
The case arose after excise officials intercepted Umesh Patra’s vehicle near Gohira Bridge under the limits of Jamda police station in Mayurbhanj district on April 11, 2025. Officials allegedly recovered two bags containing 68 bottles of non-duty-paid Indian-made foreign liquor from the boot. The quantity was reported to be around 51 litres.
Patra told the court that the bags belonged to a co-passenger who had asked for a lift and said they contained wedding items. He claimed he was unaware that the bags contained liquor. The court held that this factual defence required a proper inquiry, particularly because the seizure witnesses were not examined despite the specific claim.
The judgment drew a distinction between seizure and confiscation under Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. Authorities may seize property when they have a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed. Confiscation, however, requires the competent authority to independently satisfy itself that an offence was committed in relation to the seized property.
“Mere seizure of a vehicle in connection with an alleged excise offence cannot, by itself, justify its confiscation,” Justice Mishra observed, according to the report. The court also referred to Article 300-A of the Constitution, which protects a person from being deprived of property except by authority of law.
The ruling set aside the confiscation order issued by the authorised officer on July 16, 2025, and the subsequent order of the commissioner of excise dated August 13, 2025. It quashed the entire confiscation proceedings against the vehicle.
The court further held that placing a burden on the vehicle owner does not remove the excise authorities’ obligation to conduct an independent inquiry. The immediate administrative step arising from the order is the release of the seized car to its registered owner, subject to the necessary action by the competent authority.
