KALPANA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved being common to both these cases, both of them on being heard, are disposed of by the common judgment as follows :-

(2.) I have heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases and the learned Government Advocate, and perused the impugned orders.

(3.) As already noted, undisputedly, the petitioners are the registered owners of Aviator Moped and Autorickshaw referred to above, and there is no indictment against them under the Orissa Excise Act, 2008 (for short "the Act"). But, for the reported engagement of those vehicles in the alleged commission of offence under the Act, the seizures have been made by the Excise Officer or the Police Officer, as the case may be, purportedly under Section 71 of the Act. As the impugned orders show, the learned Magistrates have declined to entertain the applications under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. in view of the provisions of Sections 71 and 72 of the Act, and especially, the bar as contemplated under Section 72 of the Act. Those orders were affirmed by the concerned learned Sessions Judges. For sake of ready reference, the relevant parts of Sections 71 and 72 of the Act are extracted herebelow:-