Karnataka High Court directs statewide compliance after excise-seized vehicle remained at police station for nearly three years

The petitioner, the registered owner of motor vehicle No. KA.16-P-5094, challenged its seizure and continued detention in connection with Crime No. 0361/2023 for alleged offences under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

The vehicle was seized on 15 November 2023; a final report was filed on 23 September 2024, and the case was registered as C.C. No. 538/2024.

The petitioner claimed that the vehicle remained at the police station and had not been produced before the authorised officer under Section 43-A of the Act.

The State submitted that it was taking steps to produce the vehicle before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and that the petitioner could seek its release from that officer.

1. Whether the continued detention of the seized vehicle at the police station, without timely production before the authorised officer, complied with Section 43-A of the Karnataka Excise Act.

2. Whether the petitioner should be directed to seek release of the vehicle from the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, and what directions were warranted to ensure compliance with Section 43-A.

Section 43-A(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act requires an officer who seizes or detains property liable to confiscation under Section 43 to produce it, without reasonable delay, before an authorised officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Excise.

Under Section 43-A(2), the authorised officer may order confiscation if satisfied that an offence under the Act has been committed and may, pending final disposal, release property (subject to the statutory conditions, including a bank guarantee and bond).

The vehicle had been seized in November 2023, yet the State’s submission indicated that steps to produce it before the Deputy Commissioner were being taken only at the time of the hearing.

The Court held that keeping the vehicle at the police station for this period, instead of producing it before the authorised officer without reasonable delay, amounted to a “blatant violation” of Section 43-A.

It also noted the risk that prolonged police custody could leave the vehicle unusable by the time release was considered.

Since the State submitted that the vehicle had been produced before the Deputy Commissioner, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before that authority to seek a decision in accordance with law rather than ordering immediate release itself.

It directed the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise on 12 October 2026, without further notice, and required the Deputy Commissioner to pass orders in accordance with law.

The Court further directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, to issue instructions within four weeks to ensure compliance with Section 43-A; the Registrar (General) was to communicate the order and place the resulting directions before the Court.