Allowed

Chhedi Mahto @ Chedi Mahto v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Apr 2019CWJC/19300/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that Section 58 of the Bihar Prohibition of Excise Act, 2016 does not empower the Confiscating authority to confiscate money, as cash is not a prohibitory item under the Act. The court quashed the confiscation order of Rs. 1,52,000 and directed its remission.

What did the court decide?

Confiscation order dated 12.01.2018 was quashed; amount of Rs. 1,52,000 to be remitted to the petitioner within 48 hours.

Chhedi Mahto @ Chedi Mahto Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19300 of 2018

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Chhedi Mahto @ Chedi Mahto Son of Chandeswar Mahto Resident of Village/Mohallah- Loharpur, Ward No. 13, Laharpur, P.S. Bahera, DistrictDarbhanga , Bihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Darbhanga , District Darbhanga, Bihar.

¶8

The Assistant Excise Commissioner, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga, Bihar.

¶9

The Superintendent of Excise, Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga, Bihar.

¶10

The Superintendent of police, Darhanga, District Darbhanga, Bihar.

¶11

The Vehicle Inspector, Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga, Bihar.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

======================================================

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar, A.C. to GA1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN)

¶16

Date : 18-04-2019

¶17

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar, A.C. to G.A.1 for the State.

¶18

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Confiscating authority under the Bihar Prohibition of Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') who is the respondent No.2 herein, the District Magistratecum-Collector, Darbhanga whereby he has confiscated a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- from the petitioner simply because he was charged of being allegedly involved in illegal liquor trade. The order of confiscation is impugned at Annexure-2 to the writ

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.19300 of 2018 dt.18-04-2019 2/2

¶20

petition.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the materials on record and examined the provisions of Section 58 of 'the Act' which nowhere empowers the Confiscating authority to confiscate any money found in possession of a person charged with an offence under 'the Act'. The order is illegal because cash is not a prohibitory item under 'the Act' and thus could not have been confiscated by the Confiscating authority in purported exercise of power under the said 'Act'.

¶22

We accordingly quash the confiscation order dated 12.01.2018 passed in Confiscation Case No.5 of 2017 and direct the District Magistrate, Darbhanga to remit the amount in question to the petitioner within 48 hours on receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶23

The writ petition is allowed.

¶24

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶25

( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

¶26

Bibhash

¶27

AFR/NAFR	AFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	22-04-2019
Transmission Date	NA

Chhedi Mahto @ Chedi Mahto v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhedi Mahto @ Chedi Mahto v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shyam Lal Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Dhanji Kumar Yadav Vs The Union of India

Krishna Pal Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Vinay Kumar Modi @ Binay Kumar Modi Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Noman Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.