Narayan Subudhi v. State of Odisha

Order No. ORDER 12.01.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C-III, Bhubaneswar in CMC No.1152 of 2025 whereby an application under Section 503 of BNSS filed by the Petitioner seeking interim release of the vehicle bearing registration number OD-05-BM- 8501 was rejected.

Referring to the P.R in question, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration number OD- 05-BM-8501 and the offence in question was committed without his knowledge and he has not been arrayed as an accused. As such, there is no allegation against him.

On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that learned Court in seisin rejected the application filed by the Petitioner for interim release of the vehicle in question primarily on the ground that in the meanwhile confiscation proceeding under Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2008” has been initiated and also referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Ghasana Mohapatra vrs. State of Odisha, (2019) 73 OCR 663.

Learned counsel the Petitioner, Mr. Harichandan, referring to the order of this Court dated 7.8.2025 in Criminal Revision No.504 of 2024 (Lokanath Sahoo vrs. State of Odisha) and in the case of Ratnakar Behera vrs. State of Odisha, 2020 (III) ILR – CUT – 172, submitted that this Court after referring to the corresponding provisions as contained in Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. (Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS) vis-à-vis Section 72 of the Act, 2008 directed for interim release of the vehicle. Hence, he prays for release of the vehicle in question.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes such release and submits that in view of the bar as contained in Section 72 of the Act, 2008 while dealing with the seized property under Section 71 of the Act, 2008 the vehicle ought not to be released and since there is no infirmity in the impugned order, the same does not warrant any interference.

Admittedly in the case at hand though the vehicle in question belongs to the Petitioner and he has not been arrayed as an accused. On perusal of the R.C Book on record, it is seen that the vehicle is a hypotheticated one. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instruction, that though the vehicle is under seizure, he has been paying instalments which is causing hardship to him. Hence, keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Lokanath Sahoo (supra), the vehicle in question may be released in his favour subject to the outcome of the confiscation proceeding.

For convenience of reference, Sections 71(3) and 72 of the Act, 2008 are extracted hereunder; liable “71. Seizure of property confiscation - (1) & (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Where the Collector or the Authorized Officer seized any property under Sub-section (1) or where the property seized is produced before him under Sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that an offence under this Act has been committed in respect thereof, he shall, without prejudice to any other punishment to which the offender is liable under this Act, order confiscation of the property so seized or produced together with all other materials, articles, vehicles or conveyances used in committing such offence, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such an offence. (Emphasized)

72. Bar of other proceedings during pendency of confiscation proceedings - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 2 of 1974, when the Collector or the Authorized Officer or the Appellate Authority is seized with the matter of confiscation of any seized property under Section 71, no Court shall entertain any application in respect of the same property and the jurisdiction of the Collector or the Authorized Officer or the Appellant Authority with regard to the disposal of the same shall be exclusive.”

Considering the nature of allegation and the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. (Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS) and Sections 71(3) and 72 of the Act, 2008 and the decisions of this Court in the case of Lokanath Sahoo (supra) and Ratnakar Behera (supra), and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vrs. State of Gujarat, (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 444 to ensure that the vehicle under seizure ought not to be left to the vagaries of the nature, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C-III, Bhubaneswar in CMC No.1152 of 2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, impugned

10.11.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C-III, Bhubaneswar in CMC No.1152 of 2025 is set aside with a direction learned J.M.F.C-III, Bhubaneswar for interim release of the vehicle bearing registration OD-05-BM-8501 in favour of the Petitioner forthwith subject to verification of its ownership and by imposing such suitable conditions as deemed necessary including the conditions that the vehicle should not be altered in any manner nor its ownership shall be changed. And, such interim release shall be subject to the outcome of the confiscation proceeding.

The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of. (V. Narasingh) Judge PKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 20-Jan-2026 12:22:00