G NATARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the Order dated 17.10.1996 in C.A.No.131 of 1994 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram dismissing the appeal and confirming the confiscation of the vehicle by the order of confiscating authority under Sec. 14(4) of the Prohibition Act.

(2.) ON 19.11.1993 at about 22.30 hours at Koothakudi Cross Road, on Kallakurichi Thiyagadurgam Main Road, the Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi and his party intercepted the Ashok Leyland lorry bearing Registration No.T.M.J. 3357 and seized 21 iron barrels, each containing of 200 liters of rectified spirit, all totalling of 4200 liters. The petitioner-Natarajan was arrested and the contraband with the lorry were seized. In this connection a case was registered in Crime No.2752 of 1993 under Sec.4 (1-A) T.N.P.Act (Transport) read with 5,6 and 11 of T.W.R.S Rules. The petitioner gave a statement that he was the owner of the said lorry. The arrested accused Mr.Natarajan, revealed on interrogation that he is the owner of the said lorry. During the course of investigation, it was disclosed that under the directions and instructions of the petitioner, the other persons like driver and two other persons transported the rectified spirit illegally. During the pendency of the investigation, on the basis of the report sent by the Inspector of Police, the confiscating authority viz., The Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement wing sent show cause notice to the petitioner on 30.6.94 informing about the proposed action for the confiscation of the vehicle. ON 7.7.1994 the petitioner received the show cause notice and sent a reply on 13.7.1994. Intimation giving the opportunity of personal hearing was also given to him. In pursuance of that, he appeared in person on 16.8.1994 and made his statement. ON consideration of the materials produced by the police and the written reply and submission made by the petitioner, the confiscating authority viz., the Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement wing, passed an order confiscating the vehicle by giving option to the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.1 lakh being the present approximate market value of the said lorry in lieu of its confiscation. This order was made on 20.8,1994.

(3.) IT is relevant to note at this stage that the confiscating authority passed the confiscation order on 20.8.1994. IT is brought to my notice by the counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution case ended in acquittal by order dated 4.8.1995. Therefore, we have to see whether there is any relevance for considering the acquittal judgment in the matter while going through the reasonings given by the confiscating authority for confiscating the vehicle. To answer this question, some of the judgments as pointed out by Mr.Elango, Government Advocate would be of very useful. The first judgment is Swerpujanraj I. Lim-itedv. Collector of Customs, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 845 in which it has been held as follows: "A distinction must at once be drawn between an action in rem-and a proceeding in personam..... The point to note is that so far as the confisfaction of the goods is concerned, it is a proceeding in remand the penalty is enforced against the goods whether the offender is known or not known, the order of confisfaction under Sec.182, Sea Customs Act, operates directly upon the status of the property and under Sec.184 transfers an absolute title to Government"