The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4748 of 2024 Diptesh Kumar ..... State of Odisha -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Ms. Bharati Dash Opposite Party Represented By Adv. - Mr U.R. Jena, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 05.12.2025 11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which corresponds to 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in Criminal Revision No.15 of 2024 thereby rejecting the revision petition filed
Facts
at the instance of the Petitioner and confirming the order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kesingha in CMC No.15 of 2024. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that initially the S.I. of Page 1 of 7. Police, Kesinga P.S., while performing his patrolling duty, received credible information that four persons including the driver of the vehicle are illegally transporting foreign liquor in a Tata 1109 EX Turbo bearing Registered No.OR17G3978, which was plying from Narla to Kesinga side, about to enter Kesinga Town. Since there was every likelihood that the accused persons were going to enter the Kesinga Town along with liquor, the Informant stopped the vehicle by conducting a search. On being asked, the driver of the vehicle disclosed that he has been engaged by the owner of the vehicle as a driver and that his owner has directed to load the liquor from Sonepur OSBC. Accordingly, the liquor stock was loaded in the truck and after obtaining the transit route pass, the truck moved towards its destination. However, as per the direction of the owner of the vehicle, he had brought the truck to Narla on 21.02.2024 thereby violating the route permit granted to the vehicle carrying the liquor stock. It has also been alleged that in the next date morning, the liquor stock was unloaded at Narla road Off Shop and the rest of liquors were brought to Kesinga. Since the vehicle had violated the route permit and had already unloaded the stock at Narla, the vehicle as well as the stock was seized. Accordingly, a case was registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 52(a) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is a Power of Attorney of the IMFL shop situated at Narla and that shop is having a licence bearing Licence No.16/2019/0007 for Narla Road IMFL Off Shop and Licence Page 2 of 7. No.16/2019/0006 for IMFL Off Shop No.2 of Kesinga. The Petitioner further stated before the Investigating Officer that as
Legal Reasoning
this Court further found that there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the liquor and that the same was purchased from the Page 6 of 7. Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. Moreover, the forensic report placed on record by the learned counsel for the State reveals that the liquor is not adulterated. The only deficiency that is found by this Court in the entire proceeding is with regard to the deviation in the permitted route i.e., the vehicle was not plying on the route that has been permitted by the authorities. 11. In view of the aforesaid factual position, which is not disputed by either side, this Court is of the view that the impugned rejection orders dated 24.08.2024 at Annexure-3 and 20.11.2024 at Annexure-4 are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same are hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the trial court to reconsider the application of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the application of the Petitioner shall be considered strictly in terms of the provision contained in the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 by providing an opportunity to both sides. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC
Arguments
Power of Attorney owner, namely, Srikanta Sharma, he has looking after both the liquor shops. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that only after obtaining a valid pass for transport on 20.02.2024, the vehicle in question lifted the liquor stock from the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and was in the process of transporting the same in its destination. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, the Petitioner moved an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Kesinga for release of the seized liquor. Such application was rejected vide order dated 24.08.2024 by the learned J.M.F.C., Kesinga in CMC No.15 of 2024. Further, referring to the impugned rejection order dated 24.08.2024, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the trial court rejected the application on the ground that the Petitioner had not come to the court with clean hands. As such, the application filed by the Petitioner for release of the liquor stock was rejected. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2024, the Petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision bearing No.15 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna. By virtue of the judgment dated 20.11.2024, the learned revisional court rejected the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kesinga dated 24.08.2024. While rejecting the revision petition of the Petitioner, the learned revisional court has taken note of the fact that two vehicles were mentioned in the licences that were issued in favour of the Page 3 of 7. Petitioner. However, the entire stock was recovered from truck in question bearing No.OR17G-3978. Moreover, the vehicle in question also deviated the route permit. Since such deviation remained unexplained and on the failure of the Petitioner to prove the ownership of the seized IMFL from the above noted truck and after rejecting the plea of the Petitioner that the other truck in question broke down on the way whereafter the liquor stock was being transported in one vehicle, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kesinga in CMC No.15 of 2024 does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of her argument, stated before this Court that the Petitioner holds the Power of Attorney of the liquor shop owner. The liquor, which has been transported, was purchased by the owner of the liquor shop and that the same was being transported with a valid license and a transit permit. In course of such transportation, the vehicle deviated from the permitted route, as a result of which, the vehicle has been stopped and the article kept therein has been seized. Learned counsel for the Petitioner emphatically argued that the Petitioner has not violated any of the provision contained in the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. She further contended that since the Petitioner is a lawful owner of the seized liquor bottles, the stock should have been released in favour of the Petitioner on the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order passed by the trial court as well as the confirmation of such Page 4 of 7. order by the learned revisional court is highly illegal and the same is unsustainable in law. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to the prayer made in the present CRLMC application and, at the outset, contended that the vehicle carrying the liquor bottles, as has been indicated hereinabove, were seized by the police personnel while they were on a patrolling duty. Admittedly, the vehicle which was carrying the liquor shop was plying by deviating from the route for which it was permitted. He further contended that on being asked the driver of the vehicle could not establish the ownership of the liquor stock that was being transported. Hence, the vehicle along with the stock was lawfully seized and, accordingly, a case has been registered. He further contended that the trial arising out of the aforesaid incident is still pending before the trial court. Taking into consideration the nature of the stock seized, it would not be proper, legal and desirable to release the same interimly in favour of the Petitioner on his application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. An objection was also raised by the learned counsel for the State with regard to the validity of such Power of Attorney as the same is an unregistered one. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further on a close scrutiny of both the impugned orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kesinga dated 24.08.2024 as well as the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna dated 20.11.2024, this Court found that the learned courts were required to adjudicate the application of the Petitioner Page 5 of 7. under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the seized articles from the vehicle. The seized article being meant for human consumption, this Court, in course of hearing, asked the learned counsel for the State to obtain a report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar with regard to the quality of the liquor that was being transported and whether the same is fit for human consumption or adulterated. Learned counsel for the State produced a copy of report dated 03.12.2025 of the Director, SFSL, Bhubaneswar. On perusal of the report, it appears that the seized liquor bottles contained Ethyl Alcohol and the percentage of such alcohol has also been mentioned in the report. The report also further specifically mentioned that no trace of Ethyl Alcohol, which is an adulterated poison, could not be detected from the seized stock. It has also been clearly stated that no urea, which is an adulterant, could be detected in the stock. However, no specific opinion has been given with regard to the fact that whether such liquor is fit for human consumption or not. It is also not disputed by the parties that the aforesaid liquor was purchased from the Odisha State Beverages Corporation Ltd. The aforesaid corporation is a Government Corporation, which has been created by the Government for distribution of liquor in the State of Odisha to different liquor shops be it ‘On Shop’ or ‘Off Shop’. The distribution of liquor in the State of Odisha is governed by the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 as well as by the excise policy framed by the Government. On the basis of the materials available on record,
Decision
stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 09-Dec-2025 18:19:54 Page 7 of 7.