Seized cash in excise offences is subject to confiscation and release by the Collector under Section 56(2)(iv).

The petitioner was apprehended on 16.10.2021 by Simri Police during a patrolling operation after a truck and a Mahindra TUV 300 were intercepted

A search of the vehicle resulted in the recovery of illicit liquor and cash amounting to Rs. 5,38,000/- from the dashboard

Consequently, Simri P.S. Case No. 295 of 2021 was registered under Sections 420, 414, 468, and 120(b) of the IPC and Sections 30(a), 41(i), and 41(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction for the release of the seized cash

1. Under what provision of law was the sum of Rs. 5,38,000/- seized?

2. Under what provision of law can an application be made for the release of the said seized sum?

Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (as amended), which empowers the Collector or an authorized officer to confiscate items involved in an offense, including "any other item having bearing with the case" under Section 56(2)(iv)

The Court further relied on the precedent established in Pappu Rai Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (CWJC No. 1717 of 2025), which clarified that seized cash falls within the ambit of Section 56(2)(iv) and its release must be adjudicated by the competent confiscating authority to determine if it relates to illicit liquor transactions

The Court noted the State’s contention that the "seized cash" constitutes an item having a "bearing with the case" under Section 56(2)(iv) of the Act, 2016

It observed that the Act provides a complete statutory mechanism for the adjudication, confiscation, and release of such property through the Collector

Following the rationale in Pappu Rai, the Court reasoned that the authorities must investigate whether the seized amount is linked to offenses under the Excise Act; if no such involvement is found, the petitioner is entitled to a refund

Since the law on this issue is settled (res integra), the Court determined that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedy by approaching the Collector rather than seeking direct relief via a writ

It directed that if such an application is filed within four weeks, the Collector must consider it in accordance with the law and pass a reasoned, speaking order within a subsequent four-week period. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions