(1.) this writ petition has been filed by the excise commissioner for setting aside the order dated 25-11-1992 passed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal whereby it has been directed that the stock of arrack and other articles seized under the Provisions of Section 52 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ('the act', for short) be returned to the first respondent.
(2.) admittedly the first respondent was the successful bidder in the excise auction held in the excise year 1987-88 in taluks of udupi, kundapur and belthangdi of dakshina kannada district. On 9-9-1987 the sub-inspector of police for udupi town police station along with some other officers visited the godown of the contesting respondent ('the licensee', for short) and seized, arrack found stored in cans. Subsequently a police case was instituted against him under Section 34 of the act in crime No. 134 of 1987 of udupi town police station. Seizure was also reported to the excise officers as provided under Section 43-a of the act. It appears that thereafter a notice was issued to the licensee under Section 45-a of the act for imposition of penalty. But the licensee instead of contesting the said proceedings preferred to file an application for compounding the offence in terms of Section 45 of the act without inviting any adjudication on the issue as to whether he has violated any of the Provisions of the act or the rules framed thereunder or any of the conditions of the licence granted to him. Accordingly, the deputy commissioner under his order dated 20-10-1987 (Annexure-A), after noticing the relevant facts and the plea of the licensee, passed the following order:
(3.) it appears that aggrieved by that part of the order passed by the deputy commissioner whereby he had directed for sending the seized bulk arrack to the arrack bonded warehouse, udupi, the licensee preferred an appeal before the first petitioner under the Provisions of Section 61 of the act. The first petitioner on appreciating the entire facts held that since the offence has already been compounded, the seized property liable for confiscation can be released on payment of the value thereof as estimated by the designated officer; and, accordingly, he directed the deputy commissioner to release the said stock of arrack to the licensee after setting it bottled on payment of the value of the stock seized.