Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to order the release of the petitioner’s sealed dwelling after recovery of only 5 litres of illicit country-made liquor. The Court reduced the penalty imposed by the District Magistrate from ₹1,02,000 to ₹10,000, directing authorities to unseal the premises within one week of payment. The decision was aimed at preventing unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, for such a minor quantity.
Facts
The case arose from an alleged recovery of 5 litres of illicit liquor from the petitioner’s dwelling, which housed his entire family. Based on this recovery, Harpur P.S. registered a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The District Magistrate, in Excise Premises Confiscation Case No. 394/2023-24, directed the petitioner to pay ₹1,02,000 for the release of the sealed house. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking release of the premises without such a steep fine, citing his poor economic condition and the small quantity involved.
Issues
- Whether the confiscation order and imposition of ₹1,02,000 fine for recovery of 5 litres of liquor was justified.
- Whether the Court could invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to modify the penalty and prevent further proceedings under the Excise Act.
- Whether the sealing of a residential property for such a small recovery was proportionate.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- The alleged place of occurrence was his dwelling, inhabited by his entire family.
- The search and seizure did not comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under the law.
- The recovery involved only 5 litres, which is a meagre quantity.
- Imposing a penalty of ₹1,02,000 was excessive and disproportionate, especially given his socio-economic status.
- The sealing of his only house caused grave hardship, depriving his family of shelter.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State defended the seizure and confiscation proceedings, asserting that:
- Recovery of illicit liquor, irrespective of quantity, is a violation under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- The penalty imposed was in accordance with the law to deter illegal liquor trade.
- The District Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction under the amended provisions of the Bihar Excise Amendment Acts of 2018 and 2022.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which penalises manufacturing, possession, or sale of illicit liquor.
- Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, and its 2022 and 2023 amendments, which provide for confiscation and sealing of premises.
- Sections 58, 92, and 93 of the Act dealing with procedure, penalties, and confiscation.
The Court held that while the Act is stringent, its application must be proportionate. For a meagre quantity like 5 litres, invoking the full rigour of confiscation and prolonged proceedings would amount to harassment.
Precedent Analysis
While no specific external precedents were cited, the Court’s approach aligns with earlier judicial reasoning that in cases of negligible contraband recovery, especially involving residential premises, proportionality must guide the exercise of discretion. The judgment reinforces that extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction can be used to prevent injustice where statutory mechanisms may operate harshly.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench noted:
- The petitioner’s house was his sole residence, and his family’s shelter was at stake.
- The recovery quantity was minor, and prolonged proceedings under multiple provisions of the Act would cause unnecessary hardship.
- The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 justified intervention to balance enforcement with fairness.
- A reduced fine of ₹10,000 was sufficient to meet the ends of justice and serve as a deterrent without imposing undue burden.
Conclusion
The Court:
- Directed the authorities to accept ₹10,000 from the petitioner.
- Ordered the unsealing of the house within one week of payment.
- Disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that the order was made to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary harassment for a minor infraction.
Implications
- The judgment underscores proportionality in applying the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, especially for small-quantity recoveries.
- It affirms that High Courts can use Article 226 to prevent statutory overreach in minor cases.
- The case may guide future handling of confiscation proceedings to avoid excessive penalties for trivial recoveries.
Cases Referred in Judgment
No external judgments were explicitly cited in this order. The Court relied on statutory interpretation and constitutional principles to reach its decision.
FAQs
1. Can a High Court reduce penalties under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act?
Yes, under Article 226, the High Court can intervene in exceptional cases to reduce penalties if the application of the Act is found to be disproportionate.
2. Does recovery of small quantities of liquor always lead to property sealing?
Not necessarily. Courts may consider proportionality and the impact on fundamental rights before upholding such measures.
3. What is the significance of Rule 12A in liquor seizure cases?
Rule 12A governs confiscation and sealing of premises, but its application must still meet standards of fairness and proportionality.
