The Court held that reimbursement claims cannot be processed without required documents and ordered verification before releasing incentives. Authorities were directed to act within a fixed timeframe if documents are on record.
Patna High Court held that Executive Officer acting as a quasi judicial authority would fall within the ambit of the term Judge under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 hence shielded and accordingly, no civil or criminal proceedings can be initiated.
The Court examined whether a motorcycle could be confiscated when illicit liquor was carried by a rider without owner involvement. It held that absence of use of the vehicle for transport and lack of owner connivance invalidated confiscation.
The Court quashed a confiscation order after finding no proof of personal notice to the owner. The ruling underscores that meaningful notice and opportunity are mandatory before confiscation.
The Court examined whether an owner could be blamed when a stolen vehicle was misused for illegal liquor transport. It ruled that provisional release was justified after ownership verification and furnishing of sureties, despite confiscation liability.
The High Court set aside confiscation after finding the vehicle was stolen and the owner had no role in the offence. The ruling reiterates that innocent owners cannot be penalised for misuse of stolen vehicles.
The High Court quashed confiscation orders after finding that penalties for vehicle security and maintenance lacked statutory backing. The ruling reaffirms that authorities must act strictly within the rules.
The Patna High Court reduced the penalty for release of a seized rental car from 50% to 30% of insured value, noting the owner was not an accused and the vehicle was leased out.
The court found that a penalty amounting to nearly 90% of the vehicle’s insured value was excessive. It ruled that only the minimum penalty under the excise rules was justified.
Patna High Court held that judgement of conviction of Tax Assistant for accepting bribe to process income tax refund and order of sentence is justified and legal since the prosecution has proved all core points of prosecution story.
