CIRCLE INSPECTOR EXCISE NEYYATTINKARA Vs. K MUKUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an important question regarding, mainly, the interpretation of S.67 of the Abkari Act, 1077. Shortly stated the question is whether the Abkari Act, which specifically empowers the authority concerned to accept a sum of money not exceeding two thousand rupees in lieu of cancellation or suspension of a licence or permit under clauses (a) and (b) of S.26, or accept compensation for the offences under S.55, 56, 57, 58 or 63 also empowers the authority to order confiscation of a thing seized as liable to confiscation which thing did not belong to the licensee, permit holder or the person who committed any of the offences referred to in the section. The learned Judge in the judgment under appeal has taken the view that there is no such power.

(2.) We are dealing with a very old statute and we have to bear in mind that the wordings of the sections of the statute are not free from ambiguity. We have therefore to interpret these sections bearing in mind the broader aspect of the general principles of our jurisprudence. The sections with which we are concerned are S.34 which provides for the seizure of certain articles, S.65 which describes the articles that are liable to confiscation under the Abkari Act, S.66 which postulates proceedings being taken for the purpose of prosecution before a Magistrate which incidentally incorporates certain powers on the Commissioner in relation to confiscation under certain specified circumstances and S.67, the section with which we are primarily concerned in this appeal. We shall extract all these sections one after the other in toto.

(3.) Arguments at one time turned on the question whether a vehicle that has been utilised for the purpose of commission of an offence is liable to be seized under S.34 of the Abkari Act. It was pointed out that the latter part of the section specifically refers to vehicles when it speaks of the power to search but that the earlier part of the section significantly has omitted any reference to vehicles but has instead used the expression article. It was therefore urged that 'article' will not take within its ambit a 'vehicle'. We are not impressed by this argument. The word article is wide enough to take in a vehicle as well. The section cannot be interpreted in a manner which would defeat the object and purpose of the Act. A vehicle which has been used for the commission of an offence is certainly liable to be confiscated. So S.34 which deals with the power of seizure must normally be taken to provide for the seizure of that vehicle also. There is therefore no justification for giving a limited meaning to the word 'article' and exclude from its ambit vehicle. We reject the submission.