Penalty for vehicle release must be proportionate to the quantity of intoxicant recovered and owner's involvement.

The petitioner’s vehicle, a Tata Nexon (Registration No. UP53DJ9899), was intercepted by police on 15.02.2025, leading to the recovery of a meager quantity of illicit liquor (375 ml of liquor and one 500 ml beer can).

Consequently, Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 40/2025 was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

By an order dated 04.06.2025, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Gopalganj Sadar, fixed the penalty for the release of the vehicle at Rs. 3,80,000/-, representing the full insured value of the vehicle.

The petitioner challenged this order as exorbitant, citing the age of the vehicle (purchased in 2019) and the small quantity of intoxicant recovered.

Whether the penalty of Rs. 3,80,000/- (100% of the insured value) was legally sustainable under Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023, given the meager quantity of liquor recovered.

Whether the SDM failed to consider mandatory factors such as the economic status of the individual and the nature of involvement as required by the Rules.

The court applied Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023, which mandates that while imposing a penalty, the authority must have "due regard to the quantity of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the vehicle owner, and the latest insurance value," ensuring the penalty is not less than 10% of the insured value and not more than Rs. 5 lakhs.

The court also referred to Rule 12A(4) of the 2022 Amendment Rules, which requires consideration of the individual's economic status.

The precedent in *Rakesh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 14928 of 2025)*, which held that imposing high penalties without proof of regular illicit use constitutes an "onerous condition".

The court reasoned that the SDM’s order was "patently illegal" because it lacked any consideration of the meager quantity of liquor recovered (totaling only 875 ml).

The court noted that Rule 12A(2) requires a balanced assessment, yet the SDM imposed the full insurance value without examining whether the owner was personally involved or if the vehicle had a history of transporting liquor.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the SDM evaluated the petitioner's economic status or the specific circumstances of the driver's involvement as required by Rule 12A(4).

Given these lapses, the court determined the penalty was "exorbitant and unreasonable".

It held that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be a reasonable penalty under the circumstances.

The court directed that upon the petitioner depositing Rs. 10,000/- within 15 days and producing ownership documents, the vehicle should be released within one week thereafter.

The writ petition was allowed to this extent.