Vehicle confiscation needs proof, says HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a sessions court order that set aside the confiscation of a vehicle allegedly used to transport illicit liquor. The court ruled that confiscation proceedings under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act cannot rely on presumptions and require reliable evidence to establish statutory conditions.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha dismissed the state government’s criminal revision petition on June 19. He held that confiscating a vehicle has serious consequences affecting proprietary rights, meaning authorities must strictly satisfy legal prerequisites before invoking such powers.The state government had challenged the 21 February 2018 order of the Kabirdham sessions judge. That ruling had quashed the Kabirdham collector’s confiscation order dated 19 January 2015, as well as the excise commissioner’s appellate order dated 4 March 2017.According to case records, the police seized a vehicle in connection with a case registered at the Bodla police station under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act on allegations of liquor transportation.The high court noted that the prosecution claimed to have recovered 154 bottles of country liquor, foreign liquor, and beer. The record, conversely, contained no scientific or chemical examination to prove that all the seized bottles contained liquor.

The excise sub-inspector had examined only eight quarter bottles of 180 ml each and one 650 ml bottle, totaling about 2.09 litres of tested liquid. No report from a Forensic Science Laboratory or a chemical examiner existed to certify the contents of the remaining bottles.The Kabirdham collector had initiated the confiscation proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act based on a report by the superintendent of police.

This section permits confiscation only when the quantity of liquor exceeds five bulk litres.The high court observed that assuming all 154 bottles contained liquor without examining the remaining bottles lacked legally admissible evidence. It ruled that competent authorities must satisfy themselves with reliable evidence that the seized substance is liquor exceeding the statutory threshold before invoking stringent confiscation provisions.The court found that both the collector and the excise commissioner failed to address these evidentiary deficiencies and acted mechanically on assumptions. Upholding the sessions judge’s findings, the high court stated that the trial court correctly concluded that the factual foundation for confiscation was missing.The court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction remains limited. It does not function as an appellate court and can interfere only in cases of patent illegality, perversity, material irregularity, or jurisdictional errors that cause a miscarriage of justice. The high court added that the possibility of an alternative view on the same facts does not justify interference.