The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3144 of 2025 Smt. Sunita Behera ..... State Of Orissa -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Narendra Kumar Lenka Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 13.08.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Party to release the vehicle, i.e., Bolero bearing Registration No. OD-25-F-0884 in favour of the Petitioner which was seized by the excise police for commission of an offence under Section 52(a) of Orissa Excise Act. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that an FIR was lodged at the Buguda P.S. on 17.05.2024 against the Petitioner for commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 52(a) of Orissa Excise Act, 2008. The record further reveals that the Petitioner has Page 1 of 5. not been shown as an accused in the said FIR, however, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle which has been seized in connection with the crime and that the vehicle was seized during an excise raid at about 8:20 P.M. at Betarsing Chaka, Buguda on 17.05.2024. A plain reading of the FIR at Annexure-1 further reveals that the vehicle was seized by the ASI, Buguda P.S. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Buguda P.S. Case No.322 of 2024 was registered which corresponds to G.R. Case No.309 of 2024, pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Buguda. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the Petitioner moved an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court which was registered as Misc. Case No.04 of 2024. In the said application the Petitioner had taken a ground that although she is the owner of the vehicle, however, she was not involved in the alleged crime and as such he has not been made an accused in the FIR. Accordingly, a prayer was made to release the vehicle in her favour subject to any suitably terms and conditions. 6. The application filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the learned J.M.F.C., Buguda and being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner approached the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar by filing Criminal Revision No.03 of 2024. The revision preferred by the Petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Buguda was heard by the learned Revisional Court and the same has been disposed of vide order dated 05.09.2024. The learned Revisional Court while disposing of the Page 2 of 5. revision application has taken note of the provisions contained in Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act and that he has categorically held that since the confiscation proceeding has already commenced, the learned trial Court could not entertain the petition in view of the specific bar contained in the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. Accordingly, the revision petition has been dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Revisional Court rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for release of the vehicle and thereby confirming the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Buguda, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner, who is a young lady, is the owner of the vehicle and that she had no knowledge about the alleged crime. He further contended that the Petitioner is not involved in the alleged crime, however, without her knowledge the vehicle has been used in such offence. He further contended that the Petitioner has not been shown as an accused in the FIR. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the vehicle should have been released in favour of the Petitioner and that by rejecting the application for release of the vehicle, the learned Court below has committed an illegality. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the learned J.M.F.C., Buguda as well as the learned Revisional Court have not committed any illegality. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State referred to the provision contained in Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act and submitted that the procedure for Page 3 of 5. seizure and confiscation of the property has been laid down in the aforesaid provision. He further specifically referred to the proviso to Section 71(7) of the Odisha Excise Act. Referring such provision, learned counsel for the State contended that there exists a clear bar with regard to the release of the vehicle during pendency of the confiscation proceeding, even on an application of the owner of the property for such release. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality. Therefore, the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the inherent power of this Court. Accordingly, the present application be treated as devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the subsequent developments that have taken place in the present case, this Court on a close scrutiny of the order passed by the learned Courts below particularly the learned Revisional Court dated 05.09.2024 at Annexure-2 is of the view that the learned Revisional Court has not committed any illegality while rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner and confirming the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Buguda. Further, on an examination of the provisions contained in the Odisha Excise Act, this Court came across the provision contained in Section 75 of the Odisha Excise Act which provides for compoundable offences and release of her property liable for confiscation. Taking into consideration the fact that the vehicle is lying idle and exposed to the natural decay through sun and rain, this Court is of the view that the same would only cause deterioration of the condition of the vehicle and consequential loss Page 4 of 5. of value of the seized vehicle. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to move an application before the authorized officer under Section 75 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. In the event any such application is filed, the same shall be considered strictly in terms of the provision contained in Section 75 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC stands disposed of. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Aug-2025 20:25:18