K G RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the registered owner of an Ambassador car bearing Regn.No.KL-4 A 1919. On the allegation that the vehicle was escorting a lorry transporting 10,400 litres of spirit, the vehicle was taken into custody on 26/7/92. Accordingly, Crime No.94/92 of the Cherthala Excise Range was registered and the petitioner was also arrested. When the proceedings under Section 67 of the Abkari Act were pending, petitioner got the vehicle released. Meanwhile, he was tried before the Criminal Court and was finally acquitted by the Trial Court.

(2.) HOWEVER, confiscation proceedings continued and the vehicle was confiscated by Ext.P1 order of the authorised officer. Appeal filed was also rejected by Ext.P2. Thereafter petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent. That was rejected by Ext.P4 order on the ground that the right of revision under Section 67 is not available to the petitioner and that it is only suo motu revision. It is in these circumstances the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid proceedings and also Ext.P3 notice calling upon him to surrender the vehicle.

(3.) AS far as the power of revision conferred on the Excise Commissioner is concerned, that issue has already been considered by this Court in Niketa Kishorekumar v. State of Kerala (1998(1) KLT 50). In that judgment, after referring to the judgment of this Court in Dy.Commissioner v. Balachandran (1988(1) KLT 233), this court held thus; The principle laid down by the Division Bench in the above case, I am of the view, can be made applicable to the provisions contained in S. 67F of the Act. In substance the aggrieved party can bring the illegality or irregularity contained in an order passed under S.67B or S. 67E to the notice of the Commissioner and request him to invoke the power conferred on him under S.67F of the Act. When such request is made by the aggrieved party the Commissioner can exercise the power suo moto on the basis of the material brought to his notice calling for and examining me records of the case in question. The Commissioner cannot refuse to invoke the power under S. 67F suo motu on the ground that no such right has been conferred on the aggrieved party. In the aforesaid premise the petitioner is entitled to move the Commissioner requesting him to invoke the revisional power under S. 67F of the Act.