Untested Bottles Cannot Ground Vehicle Confiscation Under Excise Act, Rules Chhattisgarh HC

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha dismisses the State's revision, holding that confiscation of a Scorpio vehicle under Section 47-A required proof that seized bottles actually contained liquor exceeding five bulk litres.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has dismissed a criminal revision filed by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging the Sessions Judge's order that set aside the confiscation of a Scorpio vehicle. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, sitting singly, found that the Collector, Kabirdham and the Excise Commissioner, Raipur had both proceeded on the assumption that all 154 seized bottles contained liquor, when only a small fraction had been scientifically tested. Because the statutory threshold under Section 47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act — transportation of liquor exceeding five bulk litres — was not established by legally admissible material, the confiscation order could not stand. The order was passed on 19 June 2026 in CRR No. 637 of 2018.

The Seizure and Confiscation Proceedings

The matter originates from Crime No. 80/2014 registered at Police Station Bodla. A Scorpio vehicle bearing Chassis No. MA1TA2GMKD2G25197 and Engine No. GMD4G75065 was seized on the allegation that it was being used to transport liquor in violation of Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. The prosecution alleged that 154 bottles — comprising country liquor, foreign liquor, and beer — were recovered from the vehicle.

On the basis of a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, confiscation proceedings were initiated. The Collector, Kabirdham passed an order dated 19 January 2015 directing confiscation of the vehicle under Section 47-A of the Excise Act. Shravan Kumar Yadav, the vehicle owner, appealed to the Excise Commissioner, Raipur. That appeal was dismissed on 4 March 2017.

Yadav then preferred Criminal Revision No. 15/2017 before the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham. By order dated 21 February 2018, the Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside both the Collector's confiscation order and the Excise Commissioner's appellate order. The State challenged that order before the High Court in CRR No. 637 of 2018.

What Section 47-A Requires

Section 47-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act provides for confiscation of a vehicle where the quantity of liquor involved in the offence exceeds five bulk litres. The State's position before the High Court was straightforward: once transportation of liquor exceeding five bulk litres is established, confiscation follows as a statutory consequence. The State argued that the Sessions Judge had committed a grave illegality by interfering with the confiscation order and had passed the impugned order in a cryptic manner without properly appreciating the evidence on record.

The Evidentiary Gap the Sessions Judge Identified

The Sessions Judge had recorded a categorical finding that only a few sample bottles were examined by the Excise Sub-Inspector. The High Court examined the record and found this finding to be accurate. Only eight quarter bottles of 180 ml each and one bottle of 650 ml had been tested. The total volume of liquor actually examined and confirmed to be liquor came to approximately 2.09 litres.

No report from a Forensic Science Laboratory, chemical examiner, or any other competent authority was placed on record to certify that the contents of the remaining bottles were also liquor. The prosecution had simply assumed that all 154 bottles contained liquor and that the aggregate quantity therefore exceeded five bulk litres. That assumption, the High Court held, was not supported by legally admissible material.

Chief Justice Sinha observed that “confiscation of a vehicle is a serious consequence affecting proprietary rights” and that the statutory conditions precedent for exercise of such power must be strictly established. Satisfaction of the competent authority cannot rest upon presumptions unsupported by material evidence.

How the Collector and Excise Commissioner Erred

The High Court found that the Collector, while passing the confiscation order on 19 January 2015, did not properly consider the deficiencies in the evidence and proceeded on the assumption that the entirety of the seized substance was liquor. The Excise Commissioner, while affirming the order in appeal on 4 March 2017, also failed to advert to these material aspects and mechanically upheld the confiscation order.

The Sessions Judge, by contrast, had examined the entire record and found that the essential factual foundation required for confiscation under Section 47-A had not been established. The High Court held that the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge were based on the material available on record and could not be characterised as arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to law.

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

The High Court reiterated the well-settled position on the scope of revisional jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only when the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The mere possibility of another view on the same facts does not justify interference in revision.

Applying that standard, the Court found that the State's grounds were essentially directed towards re-appreciation of facts and evidence already considered by the Sessions Judge. Such re-appreciation is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction in the absence of manifest illegality or jurisdictional infirmity. The State had failed to demonstrate that the Sessions Judge's findings were either perverse or unsupported by the record.

The Court held that the reasons assigned by the Sessions Judge were “founded upon a proper appreciation of the evidence and a correct interpretation of the statutory provisions governing confiscation.”

Outcome

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha dismissed CRR No. 637 of 2018 as devoid of merit. The order dated 21 February 2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham in Criminal Revision No. 15/2017 was affirmed. The confiscation order dated 19 January 2015 passed by the Collector, Kabirdham and the appellate order dated 4 March 2017 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Raipur accordingly remain set aside. The Scorpio vehicle is not liable to confiscation on the evidence as it stands.