SATHYASEELAN NAIR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against Ext.P1. That is an order passed by the Excise Commissioner, first respondent exercising his power as revisional authority under Sec.67F of the Abkari Act.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of a taxi car bearing registration No. KRU 6013. In June, 1996 he was away from Kerala in Calcutta. The vehicle had been entrusted to his driver. On 22-6-1968, when the petitioner was away at Calcutta an excise party intercepted the said vehicle. The driver did not stop the vehicle and the vehicle was chased by the excise party. The vehicle met with an accident and at the point of accident the excise party inspected the vehicle. It was found that the vehicle was carrying 66.5 Kg of ganja, an intoxicating drug. The passengers as well as the driver ran away. The vehicle as well as the article was taken into custody by the excise officials and produced before the Authorised Officer. It was found that the vehicle as well as the article was taken into custody by the excise officials and produced before the Authorized Officer. It was later that the accused persons were apprehended. They admitted guilt. These are the admitted facts before me.

(3.) Proceedings were initiated in accordance with Sec. 67 B and C of the said Act for consideration of the vehicle by serving show cause notice serving on the petitioner and collecting evidence. The contention of the petitioner, the owner of the vehicle was that he was away in Calcutta. Therefore the transportation of the drug was without his knowledge or convivance. He also contended that the driver to whom he had entrusted the vehicle, while he was away, also was no5t aware of the contents of the article taken in the luggage of the passengers. The driver also did not have the knowledge of the contraband article. Therefore the vehicle ought not have been confiscated.