Property of non-accused owner cannot be confiscated without evidence of direct involvement or connivance in excise offences.

The petitioners challenged the confiscation of a "fodder house-cum-premises" (15 decimals) ordered by the Collector, Purnea, and upheld by the Excise Commissioner and Excise Secretary.

On 18.03.2022, police raided the premises belonging to Petitioner No. 2 (mother) and recovered 44.250 liters of illicit liquor.

The recovery led to the registration of Sarsi P.S. Case No. 62 of 2022 against Petitioner No. 1 (son) and others.

Petitioner No. 2 contended that she was the owner of the land, had no involvement in the trade, and was not named as an accused in the FIR or counter-affidavit.

1. Whether the confiscation of premises is legally sustainable when the registered owner has no direct or indirect involvement in the alleged excise offence.

2. Whether the seizure and confiscation of the property violated the constitutional rights of the owner under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

Section 30 (penalties), Section 56 (confiscation of seized items), Section 57B (release of premises upon penalty), and Section 58 (procedure for confiscation) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (as amended).

Rules 12B and 13B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022, which mandate that the Collector must be satisfied of an offense being committed and allow for the release of premises on penalty.

The court also invoked the constitutional principle under Article 300A, which prohibits deprivation of property save by authority of law, and Article 14 regarding protection against arbitrary state action.

The Court observed that under the statutory framework, "direct involvement or connivance of the owner" is an essential prerequisite for the seizure and confiscation of a premises.

In this case, the State failed to produce any evidence or material in the counter-affidavit to establish the complicity of Petitioner No. 2 (the owner) in the trade of illicit liquor carried out by her son.

The court reasoned that since Petitioner No. 2 was not made an accused and no allegations of connivance were leveled against her, the state's action to confiscate the property was arbitrary and lacked the "authority of law" required by Article 300A.

The court determined that the Act does not authorize the seizure of a third party's property (even a relative's) without proof of involvement or knowledge of the illegal use.

The High Court set aside the original confiscation order dated 13.01.2023, the appellate order dated 14.08.2023, and the revisional order dated 16.10.2023. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to the petitioners to deposit a nominal sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the Collector, Purnea, within four weeks. Upon deposit and satisfaction of ownership, the Collector was ordered to de-seal and release the premises to Petitioner No. 2 within two weeks.