SAJIN Vs. ASST EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the original, appellate and revisional orders in proceedings for confiscation of a vehicle under the Abkari Act on the finding that vehicle was used for illegally transporting foreign made foreign liquor. The vehicle was seized for unlawful transportation of 88 bottles of foreign made foreign liquor containing 88 litres of liquor. By Ext. P3, the Assistant Excise Commissioner ordered confiscation of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle has been used for unauthorisedly transporting 88 bottles of foreign made foreign liquor. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by Ext. P4 order and revision also met with the same fate, by Ext. P5.

(2.) The primary contention of the petitioner is that the liquor was not seized from the vehicle which was ordered to be confiscated. The petitioner submits that the seizure of the liquor and vehicle was at the Changanacherry Railway Station. According to the petitioner, the liquor was on the platform of the Railway station when the seizure was effected and the vehicle was only parked nearby. The petitioner contends that to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in the confiscation proceedings, the petitioner filed Ext. P2 reply taking the specific contention that the liquor was not seized from the vehicle and he also requested for summoning the Circle Inspector of Police, Police Constables and independent witnesses in the mahazar prepared by the Police, for being examined as witnesses in the confiscation proceedings to prove that the liquor was not seized from the vehicle. However, that was not allowed, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, which itself is sufficient to set aside the entire proceedings.

(3.) I have heard the learned Government Pleader also, who supports the impugned orders.