Bhubaneswar, November 11: The Orissa High Court ruled that merely seizing liquor from a vehicle does not automatically warrant confiscating it. The Excise authorities must independently establish the vehicle owner's involvement or knowledge of its alleged use in an offence before ordering confiscation.

Setting aside the confiscation of a Maruti Suzuki Celerio, Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that authorities cannot rely solely on seizure records and the seizing officer's statements without properly considering the vehicle owner's defence.

The court passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Umesh Patra, who challenged the confiscation of his car after Excise officials allegedly seized 68 bottles containing approximately 51 litres of non-duty-paid Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) from its rear dickey near Gohira Bridge under Jamda police station limits in Mayurbhanj district.

Patra had argued that the bags containing liquor belonged to a co-passenger who had requested a lift and informed him that they contained articles meant for a marriage ceremony. He maintained that he was unaware of the liquor being transported in his vehicle.

Examining the matter, the High Court clarified that seizure and confiscation are two distinct legal processes under Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. While a vehicle can be seized on the basis of a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed, its confiscation requires independent application of mind and satisfaction by the competent authority.

Justice Mishra found that the confiscation proceedings suffered from serious procedural deficiencies and violated the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the official witnesses to the seizure had not been examined despite Patra specifically denying any knowledge of the bags containing liquor.

The court further observed that the owner's signature on the seizure list cannot, by itself, establish his knowledge or involvement in the alleged offence. Similarly, a chemical examination report may confirm the nature of the seized substance but cannot prove the vehicle owner's knowledge or connivance.

Referring to Article 300-A of the Constitution, the judge emphasised that no person can be deprived of property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The court observed that mere seizure of a vehicle in connection with an alleged Excise offence cannot, by itself, justify its confiscation.

The High Court also found that the Commissioner of Excise had failed to address these shortcomings while deciding the appeal, despite an earlier direction from the High Court to reconsider the matter.

Consequently, Justice Mishra quashed the confiscation order passed by the authorised officer on July 16, 2025, as well as the subsequent appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Excise on August 13, 2026.

Declining to remand the matter for fresh consideration, the High Court quashed the entire confiscation proceedings and directed the competent authority to take necessary steps for the release of the vehicle to Patra.