Vehicle Confiscation Under Excise Act Requires Proof of Excess Liquor, Rules Chhattisgarh High Court

NEW DELHI: The Chhattisgarh high court has ruled that a vehicle cannot be confiscated under the Excise Act merely on the assumption that all seized liquor bottles exceeded the legal limit.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha dismissed the plea and upheld the Sessions Judge's order to release a Scorpio vehicle, as there was no proof that the liquor seized exceeded the legal limit under the Excise Act.

What was the issue

In 2014, the police in Kabirdham district booked the owner of a Scorpio vehicle under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, alleging it was transporting illegal liquor. The vehicle was seized on the claim that it carried 154 bottles of country liquor, foreign liquor and beer.

Acting on a police report, the Collector, confiscated the vehicle under Section 47-A of the Excise Act — a provision that applies only when the liquor involved exceeds five bulk litres.

However, the excise commissioner rejected the owners appeal.

The owner then moved the Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision and set aside both the confiscation and appellate orders.

The State after that challenged the order before the high court, arguing the owner had been let off despite clear evidence of excess liquor.

What did the court say

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha noted a major problem with the State's case. Police claimed 154 bottles were seized, but only 9 of them were actually tested — eight small 180 ml bottles and one 650 ml bottle, adding up to just about 2 litres.

There was no lab report or chemical test proving that the remaining bottles also contained liquor.

The Chief Justice said it was wrong to simply assume all 154 bottles had liquor without testing them.

He said confiscating someone's vehicle is a serious step that affects their property rights, so the rules for it must be clearly followed, not just assumed.

He further noted the Collector made a mistake by assuming all the seized bottles contained liquor, and the Excise Commissioner made a mistake by upholding that order without checking this problem.

The Sessions Judge, on the other hand, had gone through the entire case properly and correctly found that there wasn't enough evidence to justify confiscation.

The high court said this decision was fair and correct.

The Chief Justice also reminded everyone that a court hearing a revision case is not the same as an appeals court. It can only step in if there is a clear legal mistake, unfairness, or a serious error — not just because the State disagrees with the outcome.

He said the State was simply trying to reargue the facts, which is not allowed at this stage.

"The State has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are either perverse or unsupported by the record. On the contrary, the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge are founded upon a proper appreciation of the evidence and a correct interpretation of the statutory provisions governing confiscation," the court said.

The high court observed that the Sessions Judge was right to cancel the confiscation order.

It dismissed the State's case and upheld the earlier order that gave the vehicle back to its owner.