V P PAULSON Vs. ASST EXCISE COMMISSIONER THRISSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law arising under the Abkari Act relating to confiscation of vehicles under Section 67B of the Act arises in this case. The question is whether a vehicle which was not actually used in carrying contraband liquor, but alleged to have been used for abetting the transport of contraband liquor in the sense that the vehicle was used for allowing the culprits to escape from the scene of occurrence, is liable to be confiscated under Section 67-B of the Abkari Act. The facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of this case may be summarised as under.

(2.) On 25-7-1998, the Circle Inspector of Police, Chalakudy seized an Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No. KL-1l/B-4068 with 367 cases of illicit Indian Made Foreign Liquor. One person was arrested on the spot. Four others who were allegedly loading the liquor escaped in a Maruti Esteem Car parked near the place of occurrence of the abkari offence. The car did not have a registration number, but contained a board "For Registration". Later, a Maruti Esteem Car bearing Registration Number KL-8/L-6777 was seized on 22-3-1999, which was produced before the authorised officer as the car in which the four other accused escaped from the scene of occurrence. The vehicle was temporarily released on security pending further proceedings. On the allegation that the Maruti Esteem Car involved in the case was used for commission of an abkari offence, the said car was subjected to confiscation proceedings by the 1st respondent which ended in Ext. PI order of confiscation of the vehicle under Section 67-B of the Abkari Act. By Ext.P2 order, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of the car, on the ground that the involvement of the vehicle in the commission of the offence was not conclusively established. The 3rd respondent-Excise Commissioner took up the matter in revision suo motu and by Ext. P3 order, set aside Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent-Addl. Excise Commissioner and restored that of the 1st respondent-Assistant Excise Commissioner.

(3.) The petitioner challenges Exts. PI and P3 orders on three grounds, namely: