P RAVICHANDRAN Vs. EXCISE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage operating on the route Thrissur - Guruvayur - Kozhikode. On 22.03.2012, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the excise officials for the reason that the same was used for illicit transportation of foreign liquor. According to the excise officials, 57 bottles of foreign liquor were found concealed in the vehicle of the petitioner. Ext.P4 notice was issued thereafter by the second respondent to the petitioner directing him to show cause why his vehicle shall not to be confiscated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short. Petitioner sent Ext.P5 reply to Ext.P4 show-cause notice.

(2.) It is beyond dispute that if any offence under the Act is committed by means of a vehicle, the same is liable for confiscation under Section 67B of the Act. Section 67C of the Act dealing with the procedure of confiscation reads thus:

(3.) Ext.P6 is the order passed by the authorised officer. According to the authorised officer, the contraband articles were found in the luggage box of the vehicle and since the key of the luggage box of the vehicle was with the conductor of the bus, it has to be inferred that the transportation of the contraband articles was with the knowledge of the conductor of the vehicle. The authorised officer was also of the view that since the contraband articles were loaded into the vehicle at an intermediary point, it has to be inferred that the transportation was with the knowledge of the conductor of the vehicle. It is also stated by the authorised officer that when the contraband articles were carried in four separate packets, the conductor of the vehicle ought to have satisfied with the contents of the packets. The authorised officer has also taken note of the fact that a sum of Rs.400/- was found in the pocket of the conductor of the bus and inferred that the said amount represents the consideration for transportation of the contraband articles. It is based on the aforesaid inferences, the authorised officer came to the conclusion that the vehicle of the petitioner is liable to be confiscated.