LAL Vs. ASST EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of a mini lorry. The lorry was seized by the police in connection with an abkari offence. The offence alleged is that more than the quantity of toddy permitted by the Toddy Transport Permit was transported in the lorry. Petitioner had filed O. P. No. 634/1999 and got temporary release of the vehicle subject to confiscation proceedings.

(2.) The first respondent by Ext. P4 notice issued to the driver and cleaner of the lorry directed them to show cause why the vehicle shall not be confiscated. Petitioner being the owner of the vehicle submitted a reply and he wanted to examine the accused in the criminal case, the Circle Inspector of Police who seized the vehicle and the two mahazar witnesses. Ext. P5 is the representation made by petitioner to the first respondent. The case of petitioner is that he had the permit to transport 2550 litres of toddy and what was transported was only 2400 litres and when one permit was shown to the Circle Inspector of Police, he did not accept the same and registered the case, suppressing the permit. Therefore, petitioner wanted an opportunity to examine certain witnesses. After receipt of Ext. P5, petitioner was called for a personal hearing as per Ext. P6. On the day posted for the personal hearing, the case was adjourned without any reason. Thereafter, petitioner received Ext. P7 informing him that the confiscation proceedings cannot be equated with a criminal trial and the request for examining the concerned parties cannot be considered. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P7 by which he is refused permission to examine witnesses in the confiscation proceedings.

(3.) Therefore, the question to be considered in this Original Petition is whether in a confiscation proceeding, permission for examining witnesses or to cross examine the witnesses can be denied.