Maheswar Gajendra Vs State of Odisha

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties, particularly Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, for a direction to release the vehicle in question till disposal of the case.

¶13

The factual matrix giving rise to the present application reveals that a prosecution was initiated against the Petitioner on the basis of a P.R. submitted by the O.I.C., Excise, Khordha, before the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Khordha and accordingly a case under Section 52 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 was registered against the Petitioner and another co-accused vide Khordha

¶14

Excise P.R. No.98 of 2025-26 corresponding to 2(a)C.C Case No.133 of 2025, which is pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Khordha. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner, after being released on bail, moved the court concerned in Crl. Misc. No.190 of 2025 seeking release of the vehicle.

¶15

The learned court, having heard the parties, directed the release of the seized vehicle in the zima of the Petitioner vide order dated 23.08.2025, with a direction to the Petitioner to furnish four digital photographs of the seized vehicle from all angles with video clips, as per the guidelines laid down by this Court in W.P.(C) No.31622 of 2021.

¶16

It is the grievance of the Petitioner that despite the direction issued by the court, the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 remained recalcitrant and failed to comply with the order of the court and hence moved herein seeking appropriate directions.

¶17

Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025, learned counsel for the State has filed an affidavit sworn in by Sumati Tripathy, Superintendent of Excise, Khordha. A copy of the said affidavit along with the annexures thereto has been duly

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

served upon learned counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State, further submits that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly the documents reflected at pages 10 and 12 of the affidavit, the vehicle in question could not have been released, as the same had already been confiscated in course of the proceedings.

¶20

Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khordha, dated 17.09.2025 wherein the court has held as follows, as revealed from the case record: -

¶21

“The case record is put up today on receipt of report from the Authorized officer-cumSuperintendent of Excise, Khordha. Perused the said report and tag with the case record. On perusal of the above said report, it reveals that the alleged seized vehicle in this case has been confiscated to the State after ex-parte hearing of the confiscation proceeding by the Authorized Officer- cumSuperintendent of Excise, Khordha on 02.09.2025. In Ashok Paswan vrs. State of Orissa (2024) 93 OCR-87, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has held that subsequent order of confiscation is contrary to spirit of law. It is revealed from the case record that the petition u/s.503 BNSS, 2023 is disposed of by this court on dt. 23.08.2025 and this case record is awaiting for detailed panchanama till today where the Authorized Officer- cum Superintendent of Excise, Khordha denied to submit panchanama as

¶22

Page 3 of 5

¶23

well as for the production of the vehicle which is a gross violation of law. At this juncture this court becomes functius officio in order to proceed further in this Misc. Case. Further, this court lacks jurisdiction to initiate any contempt action against the authority who has not complied the above order dtd 23.08.2025 and 12.09.2025. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to file a contempt petition against the above authority before the Hon'ble Court after following the due procedure of law.”

¶24

Mr. Chand, further submits that the court is not functus officio in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as on the date the order for release was passed, no confiscation proceeding was in existence, as is apparent from the documents annexed to the affidavit. It is further contended that due to latches on the part of the authorities, the learned court could not come to a clear position with regard to the status of the vehicle sought to be released.

¶25

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, and considering that a copy of the affidavit has already been served upon learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 shall bring it to the notice of the court i.e. learned S.D.J.M., Khordha, with regard to the progress and predicament for non-compliance of the

¶26

Page 4 of 5

¶27

order passed by the said court. The learned court concerned shall thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in terms of the affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. The entire exercise shall be undertaken by the learned court concerned within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶28

Accordingly, the CRLMP stands disposed of.

¶29

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶30

Judge

¶31

Sarbani

¶32

Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: SARBANI DASHDesignation: Junior StenographerReason: AuthenticationLocation: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 12-Jan-2026 11:06:47

¶33

Page 5 of 5

Maheswar Gajendra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheswar Gajendra 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

Jyoti Prakash Behera Vs State of Odisha

Janardan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Puspita Dwibedi Vs State of Odisha

Biranchi Narayan Acharya Vs State of Odisha

Pitabas Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Priyadarshini Sahoo @ Priyadarsini Sahoo Vs State of Odisha