RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is assailing the order of confiscation of his Tempo Trax on the ground that as per Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the M. P. Excise Act, 1915, the petitioner was required to be issued notice in writing which was not issued.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute that Driver Munna Lal was driving the Tempo Trax in question at the relevant time when the illicit liquor was allegedly seized from the Tempo Trax which also resulted in seizure of the conveyance pursuant to which the proceedings were initiated by Collector and District Magistrate, Raisen in Case No. 521/excise/2001. Collector issued a notice to the registered owner i. e. , petitioner namely Rajendra Kumar Gupta and after hearing ordered confiscation of vehicle Tempo Trax No. M. P. 20-H-9606 exercising the power under Section 47-A. Collector passed the order on 16-5-2001 (Annexure P-l ). Against the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was decided by Commissioner (Excise) on 16-7-2002 as per Annexure P-2. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner took the matter in revision before Sessions Judge, Raisen. The revision was also dismissed on 24-9-2001 as per Annexure P-3. The main submission raised by the petitioner besides others was that the driver was required to be issued a notice in terms of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of M. P. Excise Act which was not issued in the instant case. Sessions Court found that no such notice was issued to the driver from whose possession the liquor as well as conveyance was seized.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. K. Garg, submits that issuance of notice is mandatory under Section 47-A (3) (b) of the Act which has resulted into prejudice to the petitioner as the best person to explain was the driver who was driving the conveyance and from whose possession the illicit liquor was seized.