RAWATA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 1. Hanumangarh dated 5.9.1981 whereby the learned lower court has acquitted accused Kurdaram, Dharampal and Gobind of the offence under sec. 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 for carrying 535 bottles of illicit liquor in Jeep No. DBA 726. The learned Magistrate, however, ordered for the confiscation of the Jeep which belongs to the petitioner Rawata Ram.

(2.) It may be stated here that after seizure, the Jeep was given on his Supardgi and now, the learned Magistrate has ordered for its confiscation vide his order dated 5.9.1981. It is not the case of the prosecution that this illicit wine belonged to Rawataram. The only allegation is that 535 bottles were carried in his Jeep. It has been provided in sec. 69 of the Act that every animal, cart, vessel, raft, or other conveyance used in carrying such receptacles shall be liable to confiscation provided that no such animal, cart vessel, raft or other means of conveyance shall be liable to confiscation if the owner thereof is not the owner of the article thereby removed and established that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being or was likely to be committed. The petitioner Rawataram was not going with the Jeep and, therefore, before confiscation of the Jeep, it was essential to give a notice to Rawataram, the owner of the Jeep to show causes as to why his Jeep which was found carrying 535, bottles of illicit liquor may not be confiscated this confiscation has been ordered without giving any notice to the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. S.C. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Stare Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar1, wherein it has been that even if the status does not expressly require & notice to be issued or a hearing to be given to the parties adversely effected, there is in the eye of law a necessary implication that the parties adversely effected should be heard before the Court makes an order of return of the seized property. In this case, sec. 69 of the Act clearly provides that if the owner of the vehicle is not the person alleged to be carrying the contravened goods then a notice has to be issued to him to show cause why his vehicle may not be confiscated. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh so far as it relates to the confiscation of the Jeep No. DHA 72) is concerned, it Reserve to be set aside.