Patna High Court
Mohammad Afshad AhmadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The penalty of Rs 4,75,000 is excessive and unreasonable; a penalty of Rs 5,000 is ordered as reasonable for the release of the vehicle.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohammad Afshad Ahmad, owned a Mahindra Bolero Maxx pickup that was seized after 2,500 litres of illicit beer were recovered from it during a search under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The Sub‑Divisional Officer ordered the vehicle’s release only upon payment of a penalty of Rs 4,75,000, which the petitioner challenged as excessive and unreasonable, arguing that he was not an accused and that the penalty did not consider the small quantity of liquor or the vehicle’s insured value. The State contended that the penalty was within the powers granted by Rule 12‑A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023. The High Court examined the statutory factors under Rule 12‑A (2) and (4) and found the imposed amount disproportionate, especially since the petitioner had no involvement in the offence. Relying on a prior decision (Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar), the Court fixed a reasonable penalty of Rs 5,000 and directed the vehicle’s release upon payment of that amount. The writ petition was therefore allowed, quashing the earlier order.
Issues considered
- Whether the penalty of Rs 4,75,000 imposed under Rule 12‑A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023 is excessive in view of the quantity of illicit liquor seized and the petitioner’s non‑accused status.
- Whether the petitioner, as the owner of the seized vehicle but not an accused, is liable to pay the penalty for release of the vehicle.
- What amount constitutes a reasonable penalty under the applicable rules.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- excise confiscation
- penalty assessment
- vehicle seizure
- Rule 12‑A
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- writ petition
- excessive penalty
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20965 of 2025
======================================================
Mohammad Afshad Ahmad son of Abdul Saqur, resident of village- Rajapur,
Ghosrama, P.S. Sakra, District -Muzaffarpur, the partner of R.P.F. Hatchery
and Co., Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Excise Commissioner, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Gopalganj, District - Gopalganj.
5. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj Sadar, District - Gopalganj.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, District -Gopalganj.
7. The Excise Superintendent, Gopalganj, District - Gopalganj.
8. The District Transport Officer, Gopalganj, District - Gopalganj.
9. The Station Head Officer, Kuchai Kote Police Station, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-3
Ms. Neelam Kumari, AC to SC-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
3 16-02-2026 The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned
Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj Sadar in Excise
Confiscation Case No.448 of 2025, whereby and whereunder
direction has been issued to release the seized vehicle, upon
Patna High Court CWJC No.20965 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026
2/6
deposit of a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-. The petitioner has also
prayed for directing the respondent authorities to release
Mahindra Bolero Maxx Pickup Vehicle of the petitioner
bearing Registration No. BR06GG 5830, Chassis No.
MA1RA2TTKR1K84853, Engine No. TTR1K67011 in favor
of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one
Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.123 of 2025 dated 31.01.2025 was
registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2016”)
against three persons, who were occupants of the said vehicle
in question and upon search, 2.500 liters of illicit beer was
recovered, whereafter the said persons were interrogated and
then they disclosed that they had purchased the said beer from
Uttar Pradesh as also had concealed the same in the aforesaid
vehicle, which was to be consumed by them later on.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the confiscating authority i.e. the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Gopalganj Sadar has by the impugned
order dated 17.06.2025 directed for release of the vehicle
upon payment of a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-, which is exorbitant
Patna High Court CWJC No.20965 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026
3/6
and unreasonable, inasmuch as not only the petitioner is not
an accused in the aforesaid F.I.R. but he is also in no manner,
directly or indirectly involved in the alleged occurrence. It is
further submitted that a bare perusal of Rule 12-A (2) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2023”) would show that
the Collector and the Authorized Officer while imposing
penalty should have due regard to the quantity of intoxicant
recovered, involvement of the vehicle owner and the latest
insured value of the vehicle. However, in the present case, all
these factors have not been considered. Thus, it is prayed that
the vehicle in question be directed to be released upon
payment of a reasonable amount considering the fact that
meagre quantity of 2.500 liters of illicit beer has been
recovered from the vehicle in question.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent-State has submitted that though it is true that
neither the petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid F.I.R. nor
any material has been brought on record of the counter
affidavit to show the direct or indirect
involvement/connivance of the petitioner in the alleged
Patna High Court CWJC No.20965 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026
4/6
occurrence, however the vehicle of the petitioner has been
seized on account of recovery of 2.500 liters of illicit beer
from the vehicle in question, whereafter the Competent
Authority/ Authorized Officer has already exercised his
powers under Rule 12-A of the Rules, 2023 and directed for
release of the vehicle in question upon payment of penalty of
Rs. 4,75,000/-, which in any view of the matter is not
unreasonable.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties
and perused the materials on record, from which it is apparent
that meagre quantity of 2.500 liters of illicit beer has been
recovered from the vehicle in question, which is also one of
the factors, required to be considered while imposing penalty
for release of the vehicle, as has been provided for under Rule
12-A (2) of the Rules, 2023 and Rule 12-A (4) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022. Yet
another aspect of the matter is that neither the petitioner is an
accused in the aforesaid F.I.R. nor any material has been
brought on record in the counter affidavit to show the direct or
indirect involvement/ connivance of the petitioner in the
alleged occurrence. Thus, we are of the view that the penalty
Patna High Court CWJC No.20965 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026
5/6
imposed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj
Sadar vide order dated 17.6.2025, passed in Excise
Confiscation Case No.448 of 2025 to the extent of levy of
Rs.4,75,000/-, for release of the vehicle in question is
excessive, exorbitant and unreasonable, hence the said order
dated 17.06.2025 is quashed.
6. At this juncture, we would refer to an order dated
26.11.2025, passed by the Ld. Division Bench of this Court in
C.W.J.C. No.14928 of 2025 (Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of
Bihar and Ors.).
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case as also taking into account the fact that meager
quantity of 2.500 liters of illicit beer has been recovered,
which is also one of the factors, required to be considered
while imposing penalty for release of the vehicle, apart from
the fact that neither the petitioner is an accused in the
aforesaid F.I.R. nor any material has been brought on record
in the counter affidavit to show the direct or indirect
involvement/ connivance of the petitioner in the alleged
occurrence, we are of the considered view that a sum of
Rs.5,000/- would a reasonable amount by way of penalty.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20965 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026
6/6
8. Accordingly, we direct that in case the petitioner
deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/- before the concerned
authority/Authorized Officer within a period of two weeks
from today, the vehicle in question shall be released in favor
of petitioner within a period of one week, thereafter upon the
competent authority being satisfied with the ownership of the
petitioner qua the aforesaid vehicle in question.
9. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid
extent.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-ritik/-
U
Checking your session…