K F JACOB Vs. ASST EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE driver and cleaner in charge of the vehicle admitted that the vehicle was used for transporting illicit liquor. THE confiscation of vehicle contemplated by Section 67-B(2) of the Abkari Act is subject to the procedure contained in Section 67-C. THE mandate against passing of confiscatory order under sub-section (2) of Section 67-C operates if the three conditions postulated therein exist simultaneously:- (i) that the owner or his agent was wholly unaware of the illicit use; (ii) that the owner had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use and (iii) that the person in charge of vehicle had also taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. If the owner succeeds in satisfying only two of the said postulates, he gets no benefits and the restriction against confiscation cannot operate unless the third and the most vital condition is fulfilled, viz. that it is also established that the vehicle was involved in illicit usage without the knowledge of the driver or that the driver had also taken all reasonable precautions against much illicit usage. (See in this connection the judgment of the Division Bench in State Of Kerala V. Mathew (1995 (2) KLT 772).

(2.) THE contention that the driver was not permitted to use the vehicle for other purposes, does not appear to be sound. (See in this connection the judgments of this Court in Joseph v. Authorised Officer (1993 (1) KLT 212), Nazar V. State (1996 (1) KLT 321) and Lal V. Asst. Excise Commissioner (2001 (1) KLT 840) and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 12th April, 2002 in C.R.P.No.566 of 2000). Hence, we are unable to accede to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. We see no error in the judgment under appeal. Writ appeal is dismissed.