HC questions confiscation of money seized from accused violating prohibition law

PATNA: The Patna high court on Friday directed the Darbhanga DM to file a counter affidavit as to under which provision of prohibition law he ordered confiscation of all the money recovered from the possession of a person after being arrested for violation of prohibition law.

A division bench of Justice Jyoti Saran and Justice Arvind Srivastava was hearing a writ petition filed by one Anant Kumar Mishra who had been arrested for alleged smuggling of liquor after recovery of 29 liquor bottles from his car at Sakatpur police station area in Darbhanga district on May 1 last year. The petitioner was represented by counsel Suraj Narain Yadav.

Rs 41,650 and two cellphones were also seized from his possession along with the car following the recovery. The car, bearing registration number of Uttar Pradesh, was in the name of the petitioner. The money, cellphones and vehicles were later confiscated on the orders of the DM on October 26 last year under Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016.

Justice Saran, visibly irked with the DM’s confiscation action, asked government pleader Vivek Prasad how DM presumed that money recovered from the accused was ill-gotten and under which provision of prohibition law he issued the confiscation orders of the money as well as cellphones.

The petitioner had urged the high court for quashing of confiscation order and release of items. Petitioners had alleged that he was served show-cause only with respect to car during confiscation proceedings and not for money and cellphones.

The court ordered the DM to file counter affidavit in a personal capacity explaning how he issued the confiscation orders of money and cellphones. The court also observed that failure to obey direction would lead to DM’s physical appearance before the bench during next hearing on May 1.

Earlier, on at least two occasions, the bench had directed the DM to file a counter affidavit that how he ordered confiscation of money and cellphones while passing orders for confiscation of car from which liquor was seized.

However, during hearing on April 1, instead of the DM, sub-divisional police officer (SPDO) of Darbhanga sadar area had filed it which left the court infuriated.

Then, the court had warned DM that his act would invite proceedings against him. However, again during Friday’s hearing, the counter affidavit came from Darbhanga’s excise superintendent which left the court completely irked forcing it to order that this time DM’s failure to reply would result his physical appearance.