Cuttack: Mere recovery of liquor from a vehicle cannot automatically justify its confiscation, Odisha high court has ruled, underlining that excise authorities must establish the circumstances of its use in an alleged offence before depriving an owner of his/her property.Quashing confiscation proceedings against a car seized in an excise case, Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that failure to examine relevant witnesses and assess disputed facts undermines the fairness of the proceedings. The court also directed authorities to take necessary steps to release the vehicle to its owner.The case arose after excise officials intercepted Umesh Patra’s vehicle near Gohira Bridge under Jamda police station limits in Mayurbhanj district on April 11, 2025. They allegedly recovered two bags containing 68 bottles of non-duty-paid Indian-made foreign liquor, measuring around 51 litres, from the vehicle’s boot space.Patra’s defence was that the bags belonged to a co-passenger, who had requested a lift and had claimed they contained wedding items. He claimed he was unaware of their actual contents.The court emphasised that Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, distinguishes between seizure and confiscation. While seizure can be based on a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed, confiscation requires the competent authority to independently satisfy itself that an offence was committed in respect of the seized property.“Mere seizure of a vehicle in connection with an alleged excise offence cannot, by itself, justify its confiscation,” Justice Mishra observed, referring to the constitutional protection under Article 300-A, which prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law.Setting aside the confiscation orders passed by the authorised officer on July 16, 2025, and the commissioner of excise on Aug 13, Justice Mishra quashed the entire confiscation proceedings. He further directed the competent authority to take necessary steps for release of the seized car to its registered owner-petitioner.The judge held that the owner’s burden does not relieve authorities of their duty to conduct an independent inquiry and noted that seizure witnesses were not examined despite a specific factual defence.