Rudra Prasad Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

This Court by order dated 8^th August, 2025 had directed the State to take instructions and to apprise the Court as to if any such notice was ever issued to the petitioner by the concerned authority in the confiscation proceeding.

¶14

No such instruction has been received by the State as yet. It is, however, informed to the Court by Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State that the record reveals notice in the confiscation proceeding but the petitioner did not turn up. Mr. Ghadei, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued and served on the petitioner in connection with any such confiscation proceeding involving the vehicle in question and it has been followed by the rejection order i.e. Annexure-2.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties, instead of awaiting for any such instruction

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

to be received by the State, the Court is inclined to dispose of the revision on merit by the following order.

¶18

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 6^th September, 2024 at Annexure-2 in Excise Appeal Case No.10 of 2024. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Harbhajan Singh Vrs. State of Haryana (2023) 91 OCR (SC) 46 , it is submitted to the Court by Mr. Ghadei, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not have the knowledge and consent in the illicit transportation of liquor seized along with the vehicle in question and therefore, the authorities below could not have confiscated the same. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State reiterates by claiming that notice was issued to the petitioner and since, he did not respond to the same and considering the recovery of huge quantity of distilled liquor being transported in the vehicle, it was rightly confiscated and confirmed in appeal by the learned Excise Commissioner, Odisha vide Annexure-2.

¶19

6. Perused the impugned order i.e. Annexure-2.

¶20

Law is well settled that before any such confiscation, a satisfaction is to be arrived at by the authority concerned with regard the knowledge and consent of the owner of the vehicle. It is claimed by the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the alleged transportation of liquor in the vehicle and it was intercepted by the Excise police and finally led to the confiscation and rejection and confirmation vide Annexure-2. In fact, in Harbhajan Singh (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of conviction under the

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

NDPS Act held and concluded that the knowledge and consent of the owner of the vehicle is necessary. By analogy, Mr. Ghadei, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having no knowledge about the alleged transportation in the vehicle, hence, the order of confiscation and impugned decision as per Annexure-2 is legally untenable.

¶23

Section 71(5) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 (herein after referred to ‘the Act’) stipulates that no order of confiscation under sub-section (3) thereof in respect of any such articles including vehicles and conveyances shall be made if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the Collector or the Authorized Officer as the case may be that it was used without his knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any or the person in-charge of such property in committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. On a reading of such provision, the Court finds that the satisfaction was required to be arrived at by the learned Excise Commissioner, Odisha before directing confiscation of the alleged vehicle.

¶24

Since, it is claimed that notice was issued and served and denied by the petitioner that the proceeding was continued and ultimately disposed of, the Court is of the view that the authority below should be directed to enquire about any such service of notice on the petitioner. Such a course of action is necessary for the reason that the vehicle of the petitioner has been confiscated. It is concluded that the learned Excise Commissioner, Odisha should take a decision afresh with an enquiry to ascertain as to when the notice was issued and

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

served or was held sufficient on account of default of the petitioner and thereafter, to proceed to pass necessary order keeping view the provision of Section 71(5) of the Act.

¶27

10. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶28

In the result, the revision petition stands deposed of with the direction as aforesaid and till such time, the final order is passed by the learned Excise Commissioner, Odisha, the decision as per Annexure-2 in Excise Appeal Case No.10 of 2024 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶29

12. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶30

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶31

Rojina

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 16-Sep-2025 11:19:12

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Rudra Prasad Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudra Prasad Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Nayak Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma,Chairman Cum M.D Optcl

Basanta@Basanta Kumar Mallick Vs Khagendra Prasad Behera

Kishore Chandra Mallick Vs Anu Garg,Ias

Satyendra Kumar Vs Union of India

Anita Nayak Vs Krishna Kumari Jena

Apan Kumar Dey Vs Harinarayan Sahu