Criminal court jurisdiction for interim release survives when confiscation proceedings are not promptly initiated against seized property

Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 did not, on the facts shown, oust the criminal court's power to consider interim release of seized property where confiscation proceedings had not been initiated or the vehicle had not been produced before the Collector or authorised officer. The court held that the confiscation scheme under Section 71 requires prompt action and does not justify indefinite retention without moving the statutory machinery. Where the applicant was an innocent owner not arrayed as an accused, the criminal court could still entertain an application for release under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC if confiscation had not progressed within a reasonable time, and the refusal of interim release was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 barred the criminal court from considering interim release of the seized vehicle when confiscation proceedings had not been shown to have been initiated. (ii) Whether, in the case of an innocent owner not arrayed as an accused, the criminal court could entertain an application for release of the vehicle under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if the vehicle had not been produced before the Collector or authorised officer within a reasonable time and confiscation had not progressed.

Issue (i): Whether Section 72 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 barred the criminal court from considering interim release of the seized vehicle when confiscation proceedings had not been shown to have been initiated.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 71 contemplates seizure of property liable to confiscation and production before the Collector or authorised officer. Section 72 operates where confiscation proceedings are pending, but the record did not show that the vehicle had in fact been produced before the Collector or authorised officer or that confiscation proceedings had been commenced. The mere reference to Section 72 was, therefore, insufficient to exclude consideration of the application. The Court also noted that seizure of valuable property must be followed by prompt confiscation action, consistent with the protection of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Section 72 did not, on the facts shown, absolutely bar consideration of the application.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the case of an innocent owner not arrayed as an accused, the criminal court could entertain an application for release of the vehicle under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if the vehicle had not been produced before the Collector or authorised officer within a reasonable time and confiscation had not progressed.

Analysis: The confiscation provisions under Section 71 are stringent, but they are directed to property connected with the offence and do not justify indefinite retention without initiating confiscation proceedings. The owner's status as a person not accused of the offence was material. In such circumstances, where the vehicle was not produced before the competent authority within a reasonable time and confiscation was not completed with reasonable promptitude, the criminal court retained jurisdiction to consider interim release under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The criminal court could entertain the request for interim release in favour of an innocent owner not arrayed as an accused.

Final Conclusion: The order refusing interim release was set aside, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, and the legal position was clarified that confiscation machinery must be promptly set in motion before criminal court jurisdiction is excluded.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on interim release of seized property does not oust the criminal court's jurisdiction where confiscation proceedings have not been initiated or pursued within a reasonable time, particularly when the applicant is an innocent owner not accused of the offence.

---