Interim release of vehicle under Excise Act is permissible despite pendency of confiscation proceedings.

The Petitioner, the registered owner of a Mahindra Supro Profit Truck Mini VX (Regd. No. OD-11AC-9098), sought the interim release of his vehicle which was seized in connection with 2(a) C.C. Case No. 402 of 2025 for offences under Section 52(a)(ii)/62(1) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008

The trial court (J.M.F.C-I, Baripada) rejected the application for interim release on 09.12.2025, citing the initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 71 of the Excise Act and relying on the precedent Ghasana Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

The Petitioner moved the High Court in revision, contending he was not arrayed as an accused, the offence occurred without his knowledge, and he was suffering financial hardship as the vehicle was hypothecated and required monthly installments

1. Whether the bar on jurisdiction contained in Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 precludes a Criminal Court from granting interim release of a vehicle when confiscation proceedings have been initiated

2. Whether the vehicle should be released to prevent deterioration (vagaries of nature) pending the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings

The Court primarily considered Section 71(3) and Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, which stipulate that once confiscation proceedings are initiated, the jurisdiction of the Collector or Authorized Officer is exclusive and no Court shall entertain applications regarding the same property

Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the disposal of property

The Court relied on its previous decision in Narayan Subudhi v. State of Odisha (CRLREV No. 1131 of 2025) and the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), which emphasizes that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations to rot but should be released on suitable conditions

The Court observed that while Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the Excise authorities during confiscation, the Petitioner was not an accused in the criminal case, establishing a lack of prima facie complicity

The Court reasoned that keeping the vehicle under seizure would subject it to the "vagaries of nature" and cause undue financial hardship to the owner who continues to pay loan installments

Following the rationale in Narayan Subudhi, the Court found that the trial court's rigid interpretation of the statutory bar under the Excise Act was improper in light of the judicial policy established by the Apex Court to prevent the total loss of utility of seized moveable property

The Court concluded that the interests of justice and the protection of the property's value outweighed the procedural bar, provided the release was made subject to the final outcome of the confiscation proceeding

It directed the interim release of the vehicle (OD-11AC-9098) in favor of the Petitioner upon verification of ownership and imposition of suitable conditions, including prohibitions against altering the vehicle or changing its ownership

The Court held that such release remains subject to the final outcome of the ongoing confiscation proceedings under the Odisha Excise Act