CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments advanced by Mr. T. Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mrs. S. Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) representing the respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) A case was registered on 22.03.2014 on the file of the Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur as Crime No. 134 of 2014 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1 -A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 when 12 bottles of 750 ml capacity of brandy were transported without any licence from Union Territory of Puducherry to Tamil Nadu in a Chevrolet Tavera car bearing Regn. No. TN -51 -P -2259. Accordingly, the said vehicle was seized by the police and the seizure was reported to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur. On a report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur, the Prohibition Officer namely, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Thanjavur who is the second respondent herein passed the impugned order confiscating the said vehicle. The said order was passed on 01.04.2014 purportedly under Section 14(4)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and G.O. Ms. No. 259, P & E Department. The said order was challenged before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in C.A. No. 36 of 2014 under Section 14(5) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. It was contended before the learned appellate Judge that the procedure contemplated for passing of the confiscation order was not followed and that therefore, the order was vitiated. It was also contended therein that the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice was also flouted and a final order that came to be passed earlier on 01.04.2014 was sought to be ratified by issuing a notice which should have preceded the order of confiscation. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, after hearing, dismissed the said appeal by his judgment dated 11.09.2014 holding that there was no irregularity in the order passed by the Prohibition Officer namely, the second respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) SUB Section (1) deals with the power of the Court to order confiscation of anything even if the trial ends in acquittal and Sub Section (2) deals with the power of the Court trying a case for offence against the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 to order confiscation of any animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle, when such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle has been produced into the Court. The proviso, provides that before passing any such order under sub Sections (1) and (2), the owner of such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle claiming any right thereto should be given an opportunity of being heard to satisfy the Court that such person on exercise due care in prevention of the commission of such an offence and that in the event of such a satisfaction, no such confiscation order shall be passed.