Interim release of vehicle under Excise Act is permissible despite pending confiscation proceedings to prevent deterioration.

The Petitioner, the registered owner of a Mahindra Scorpio (Regd. No. OD 34 G 0297), challenged the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack.

The lower court had rejected the Petitioner’s application for the interim release of the vehicle, which was seized in connection with an offence under Section 52(a) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008.

The vehicle was allegedly used for the offence without the Petitioner's knowledge, and the Petitioner was not arrayed as an accused.

The J.M.F.C. denied the release primarily because confiscation proceedings under Section 71 of the Act had been initiated and cited judicial precedents barring such release.

1. Whether the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to order the interim release of a vehicle seized under the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, when confiscation proceedings are pending.

2. Whether the bar contained in Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, prevents the High Court/Subordinate Courts from exercising powers for interim custody to prevent the deterioration of property.

The Court primarily applied Section 71(3) and Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, which provide for the confiscation of property and create a jurisdictional bar for courts during the pendency of confiscation proceedings.

The Court integrated these with Section 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. (now Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS, 2023) regarding the custody and disposal of property.

The Court relied on the precedent set in Narayan Subudhi vrs. State of Odisha (CRLREV No. 1131 of 2025) which allowed interim release despite the Act's restrictions.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s mandate in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vrs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 290, which emphasizes that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in open spaces.

The Court reasoned that although Section 72 of the Act, 2008, purports to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Collector or Authorized Officer regarding seized property, the physical preservation of the asset is paramount.

The Court noted that the Petitioner was not an accused in the criminal case, had no criminal antecedents, and was suffering financial hardship by paying installments for a hypothecated vehicle that he could not use.

Following the logic in Narayan Subudhi, the Court determined that the Magistrate's order failed to account for the "vagaries of nature" that would damage the vehicle if kept under seizure indefinitely.

By invoking the principles of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, the Court justified the interim release as a measure to protect the property’s value, provided the release is subject to the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings and secured by stringent conditions.

The holding established that interim custody can be granted notwithstanding pending confiscation proceedings under the Odisha Excise Act to prevent the vehicle's decay.

The release is subject to ownership verification and conditions that the Petitioner shall not alter the vehicle, change its ownership, and that the custody remains subject to the final decision of the confiscation proceeding.

The Criminal Revision was disposed of accordingly.