COMMISSIONER OF PROHTSITION AND EXCISE Vs. M. GAJANANAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dtd. 3/8/2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26398 of 2008.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner No.1, who was the owner of the tanker lorry bearing No.AP 23T 2158, engaged the said lorry for transportation of 12.9 metric tones of molasses from Ramakrishna Khandsari Sugar Factory, Toopran, Medak District, and on 25/12/2002 when the respondent No.1/writ petitioner No.1 got loaded the vehicle with 12.9 metric tones of molasses, it was intercepted and seized by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Secunderabad. The driver and cleaner of the vehicle were arrested and a case was registered in Crime No.187 of 2002-2003 under Sec. 34(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. The learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.838 of 2004 sentenced the driver, cleaner and owner of the molasses under Sec. 34(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and they were inflicted with six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000.00 with a default clause. Thereafter, an appeal was also preferred in the matter i.e., Crl.A.No.17 of 2007 and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, has allowed the appeal vide judgment of acquittal dtd. 4/7/2007. In the meanwhile, the criminal case was going on and a show cause notice was issued on 9/1/2002 to the respondents/writ petitioners to show cause as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated and the respondents/writ petitioners did submit a reply to the show cause notice within the time stipulated therein and finally an order of confiscation was passed on 23/6/2003. An appeal was preferred in the matter before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and a writ petition was also preferred i.e., W.P.No.9595 of 2004, and this Court, by an order dtd. 17/6/2004 in W.P.M.P.No.12150 of 2004 in W.P.No.9595 of 2004, directed the respondents therein not to sell the said vehicle along with molasses. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of directing the appellate authority to pass orders. The appellate authority has passed an order on 20/2/2006 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of confiscation. Thereafter, a writ petition was preferred again i.e., W.P.No.26398 of 2008 and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of confiscation dtd. 23/6/2003. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana State at Hyderabad, along with two others have preferred the present writ appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants/State has argued before this Court that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside on the ground that molasses is used to manufacture liquor and keeping in view Sec. 13 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act"), any article which is prohibited can be seized, if a person, who is in possession of the article, does not have a licence for the same. Learned counsel has also argued before this Court that the molasses seized by the Excise Department was being transported for the purpose of manufacture of illicit liquor and the same can be seized by the Excise Department, if the Excise Department is having reasons to believe that the molasses is being transported only for the purpose of manufacture of illicit liquor. It has also been argued once again that under Sec. 13 of the Act, the molasses is a material for manufacturing the illicit liquor. He has also argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law and facts in allowing the writ petition.