Naveen writes to PC for Pesidential assent

BHUBANESWAR: Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik on Thursday reiterated his  demand that the Home Ministry should put the Odisha Excise Bill, 2005, before the President for her assent as soon as possible. Writing a second letter to Union Home Minister P Chidambaram in two weeks, Naveen said the State Government had complied with the clarification sought by the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance. The Chief Minister wrote to Chidambaram following media reports that Presidential assent to the Orissa Excise Bill, 2005, is delayed because the State Government has not complied with some of the clarifications sought by the Finance Ministry. “The view of the State Government on the comments of the Department of Revenue were sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs on February 24,” Naveen said. He requested the Union Home Minister to follow up the matter and put the bill before the President for her assent. The Bill was sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs by the Secretary to Governor on January 28, 2009 seeking Presidential assent. The proposed legislation seeks to replace the Bihar and Odisha Excise Act, 1915, and it has provisions for establishment of excise stations, trial of excise offences by special court and forfeiture of property of bootleggers. The Bill, passed by the Assembly in 2008, made the penal provisions for offenders more stringent and confiscation of seized property more simple. In case of death due to consumption of spurious liquor, the maximum punishment for the offenders is life imprisonment or ` 10 lakh fine or both. The new law provides for establishment of special courts for speedy disposal of excise cases. Power will be vested with administrative authority to confiscate seized property rather than with judiciary, ostensibly to save time. Compensation to the victim of liquor tragedy or his family, as decided by the competent court will be recovered from the offender. Provision is made for forfeiture of illegally acquired property by persons convicted by the court. The onus is on the convicted person to prove that any seized property is not illegally acquired. The state, which had already experienced three tragic incidents with a large number of deaths in 1992, 2006 and in February this year, needs a strong law to deal with the offenders.