Patna High Court
Shambhu Nath RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The penalty of Rs 3,80,000 is illegal and excessive; the order is quashed and a reasonable penalty of Rs 10,000 is directed.
Summary
Shambhu Nath Rai filed a writ petition challenging the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate's order that imposed a penalty of Rs 3,80,000 for the release of his vehicle seized after a small quantity of illicit liquor (875 ml) was recovered. The petitioner argued that the penalty was excessive, the vehicle’s depreciated value and his lack of involvement were not considered, and that the magistrate failed to apply the factors required under Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023 and Rule 12A(4) of the 2022 Rules. The State contended the order was in accordance with the Rules but could not justify the amount. The Court examined the statutory provisions, noted that the magistrate ignored the meagre liquor quantity, the owner's involvement, and economic status, and referred to a prior decision (Rakesh Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar). It held the penalty unlawful, quashed the order, and directed that a reasonable penalty of Rs 10,000 be paid for the vehicle's release.
Issues considered
- Whether the penalty of Rs 3,80,000 imposed under Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023 is lawful given the small quantity of liquor recovered and the petitioner’s lack of involvement.
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate considered all factors mandated by Rule 12A(2) and Rule 12A(4), including quantity of intoxicant, involvement of the owner, insured value, and economic status.
- What amount of penalty, if any, is appropriate for the release of the seized vehicle.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- excise
- vehicle seizure
- penalty
- Rule 12A
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- quashing order
- disproportionate penalty
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.333 of 2026
======================================================
Shambhu Nath Rai Son of Hari Krishna Rai @ Hari Shankar Rai, Present
Resident of House No. 8/47 Mahadev Jhakhandi Tukra No. 01, P.S.- Caint,
Tahsil- Gorakhpur Sadar, District- Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, Permanent
Resident of Village- Mahuawa Buzurg, P.S.- Kushinagar, District-
Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate/Collector, Gopalganj.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj.
7. The Excise Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj.
9. The Officer-in-Charge of Gopalpur Police Station, District- Gopalganj.
10. The Investigating Officer of Gopalpur PS Case No. 40/2025, dated-
15.02.2025, Gopalpur Police Station, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Javed Aslam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.P. Gupta, GP-10
Mrs. Deepanjali Gupta, AC to GP-10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date : 09-03-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Gopalganj Sadar in Excise Confiscation Case No.
264 of 2025 (arising out of Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025)
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2026 dt.09-03-2026
2/7
whereby and whereunder the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Gopalganj has fixed a sum equivalent to the insured value of the
vehicle in question i.e. a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- as penalty
amount for the purposes of release of the vehicle in question.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the First Information
Report bearing Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025 dated
15.02.2025, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act, 2016’), against two persons, namely Indrajeet Patel and
Ramnath Gupta is that on 15.02.2025 at about 05:30 in the
evening while the police personnel were checking vehicles for
suspected illicit liquor, at about 07:15 p.m. in the evening one
four wheeler vehicle was coming briskly from Uttar Pradesh,
whereafter the said vehicle i.e. Tata Nexon car bearing
Registration No. UP53DJ9899, Chassis No.
MAT627165JLK44037, Engine No. 1.SCRAIL01JRYW38352
was apprehended and checked, leading to recovery of 375 ml. of
illicit liquor and one 500 ml. Kingfisher beer can. The said
occurrence led to institution of the aforesaid Gopalpur P.S. Case
No. 40 of 2025.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
confiscating authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2026 dt.09-03-2026
3/7
Gopalganj by the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed in
Excise Confiscation Case No. 264 of 2025 has though directed
for release of the vehicle in terms of Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Rules, 2023) on payment of the insured value
of the vehicle i.e. a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/-, however the same is
exorbitant and unreasonable inasmuch as the quantity of liquor
recovered from the said vehicle is meagre. It is further
submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on
25.10.2019 i.e. about six years back, hence the depreciated
value of the vehicle in question ought to have been considered.
It is next submitted that a bare perusal of the Rule 12A(2) of the
Rules, 2023 would show that the Collector/his authorized officer
while imposing penalty should have due regard to the quantity
of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the vehicle owner and
the latest insurance value of the vehicle, however in the present
case all the said factors have not been considered inasmuch as
the owner of the vehicle i.e. the petitioner herein was not
apprehended from the spot and there is no averment in the
counter affidavit to the effect that the vehicle in question was
being regularly used for ferrying illicit liquor. The Ld. Counsel
for the petitioner has further referred to paragraph no. 9 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2026 dt.09-03-2026
4/7
writ petition to submit that the vehicle of the petitioner was
being driven by his driver Indrajeet Patel and the said driver
alongwith one Ramnath Gupta were going to attend a marriage
ceremony, however on the way the said vehicle was
apprehended by the police and on account of recovery of illicit
liquor the same was seized, nonetheless as far as the petitioner is
concerned, he is having no complicity in the alleged occurrence.
4. Per contra, the Ld Counsel appearing for the respondent-
State has submitted that the impugned order dated 04.06.2025
has been passed in accordance with Rule 12A(2) of the Rules,
2023, nonetheless the Ld. Counsel for the respondent-State has
not been able to deny the fact that the amount of penalty
assessed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Gopalganj is
excessive.
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record.
6. At this juncture, we would like to reproduce Rule 12A (2)
of the Rules, 2023 herein below:-
“Rule 12A (Release of Vehicles, Conveyance etc. on
Payment of Penalty):-
"(2) The amount of penalty shall be as decided by the
Collector or the Officer authorized by him. While
imposing the penalty, he shall have due regard to the
quantity of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the
vehicle owner and the latest insurance value of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2026 dt.09-03-2026
5/7
vehicle. In no case, the penalty should be less than
10% of the insured value of the vehicle and more
than Rs. 5 lakhs. The insured value is the value of the
vehicle as assessed by the insurance company.
Where, the insured value is not available or the
Collector or the Officer authorized by him has reason
to believe that the vehicle is undervalued, he shall get
the valuation done by the District Transport Officer.
In any case, the Collector shall not wait
beyond 15 days from the date of seizure and if during
this period, the accused/owner does not pay up the
penalty, he shall proceed with the
confiscation/auction."
7. A bare perusal of Rule 12A(2) of the Rules, 2023 would
show that while imposing penalty the quantity of intoxicant
recovered as also the insurance value of the vehicle is required
to be considered, however in the present case, we find that there
is no consideration about the meagre quantity of illicit liquor
recovered from the vehicle in question, hence the order passed
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj is patently illegal.
Nonetheless, at this juncture we would like to refer to an order
dated 26.11.2025, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in CWJC No.14928 of 2025 (Rakesh Kumar Singh vs. the
State of Bihar & Ors), wherein it has been held as under:-
"In absence of any specific ground that the vehicle
was in regular use for transportation of liquors or
that the owner of the vehicle was found involved in
transportation of the liquors and/or there are
multiple cases of similar nature against the owner or
the vehicle, imposition of the penalty to the extent of
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2026 dt.09-03-2026
6/7
75 per cent of the insured value is an onerous
condition and it amounts to virtually creating a
situation where huge hardship may be caused to an
owner of the vehicle in getting release of the vehicle."
8. Yet another aspect of the matter is that Rule 12A(4) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022
provides that while imposing fine, the Collector or the officer
authorized by him shall have due regard to the economic status
of the individual, nature of his involvement in the crime and the
quantum of intoxicant recovered, however in the present case
we do not find that such exercise has been done by the Ld. Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj while passing the impugned
order dated 04.06.2025.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
as also taking into account the fact that meager quantity of 875
ml. of illicit liquor has been recovered, which is also one of the
factors, required to be considered while imposing the penalty for
release of the vehicle as has been provided under Rule 12A(2)
of the Rules, 2023 and Rule 12A(4) of the Rules, 2022, we are
of the view that the penalty imposed by the Ld. Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Gopalganj is exorbitant and unreasonable, hence the
order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Gopalganj in Excise Confiscation Case No. 264 of
2025, arising out of Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025, is
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2026 dt.09-03-2026
7/7
quashed. Nonetheless, we are of the considered opinion that a
sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be a reasonable amount by way of
penalty.
10. At this juncture, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner would be depositing a sum of Rs.
10,000/- within a period of 15 days from today and shall make
available the documents of ownership of the vehicle in question
before the competent authority. In such view of the matter, we
direct that in case the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/- is
deposited before the competent authority within a period of 15
days from today, the vehicle in question shall be released in
favour of the petitioner after being satisfied with the documents
relating to ownership of the vehicle within a period of one week
thereafter.
11. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 11.03.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…