KUPPILI RAVI KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of a Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No. AP-30T-7588. In this writ petition, he has questioned the order of confiscation, dated 05.09.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Srikakulam, in ROC.No.309/2006, and the further order of the appellate authority, dated 07.11.2007, issued in ROC.No. 14756/2006/CPE/D-4.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 01.07.2006, on the allegation that the petitioner was illegally transporting 274 Nips (180 ml) bottles of Madras Malt Whisky in the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. AP-30T-7588, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchili, has seized the goods along with the vehicle and registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2006 under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act). THEreafter, the said case was transferred to the Prohibition and Excise Station, Sompet, along with the case property, for further investigation and prosecution and a case in P.R. No.72/2006-07 was registered under Section 34(a) read with 45 of the Act. Subsequently, the Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise Station, Sompet, has submitted a report before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Srikakulam, for initiating confiscation proceedings, pursuant to which, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.08.2006 calling upon him to show cause as to why the seized goods and the vehicle of the petitioner should not be confiscated under Section 46 of the Act. THE petitioner has filed a detailed explanation to the said show cause notice on 25.08.2006 before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and a copy of the explanation is also placed before this Court.

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is an educated un-employee and he purchased the vehicle in question, by borrowing huge loans. It is further stated that he has been using the said vehicle as a maxi cab as per the permission granted by the transport authorities. He also pleaded that the vehicle was not used for any illegal purpose, much less, for illicit transportation of liquor, as alleged.