Dismissed

Indira Pushpan v. Excise Commissioner

Kerala HC16 Jul 2012WP(C)/5552/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders confiscating a vehicle under Section 67 of the Abkari Act. The petitioner argued acquittal in the related criminal case invalidated the confiscation. The court held that proceedings under Section 67B can occur irrespective of criminal acquittal and denied the petitioner's plea due to lack of evidence regarding precautions. Dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the orders of confiscation was dismissed.

Indira Pushpan Vs Excise Commissioner — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2012/25TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5552 of 2006 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SMT. INDIRA PUSHPAN, KUTTIYIL PUTHEN VEETIL, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF TAXES & EXCISE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C)NO.5552/2006

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.07-6408/2002 DATED 7/2/2004.

¶22

P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.7/APL/2004/AC (X) DATED 17/09/2004.

¶23

P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/10/2005 OF THE HON'BLE ADDL.AND SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-III), KOLLAM) IN SESSIONS CASE NO.456/2004.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶30

--------------------------------------------------

¶31

W.P.(C) NO.5552 OF 2006-J

¶32

--------------------------------------------------

¶33

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2012

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner is the registered owner of a Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.KL-3-F 6655. On 11.11.2002 police seized the vehicle while it was transporting 1050 ltrs of spirit. Accordingly Crime No.384/02 of the Ochira Police Station was registered. Proceedings under Section 67 of the Abkari Act were initiated and finally by Ext.P1 order the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated. This order was confirmed in Ext.P2 by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner also. It is challenging Exts.P1 and P2 the writ petition is filed.

¶36

The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent to Exts.P1 and P2, by Ext.P3 judgment in SC.No.456/04, the criminal case registered on the basis of the seizure, the accused was acquitted. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there was no basis for the proceedings under Section 67 of the Act and for that reason these orders should be set aside.

¶37

A reading of Section 67B of the Abkari Act itself shows that proceedings thereunder can be initiated against the vehicle

¶38

WPC.No. 5552/2006

¶39

:2 :

¶40

irrespective of whether a criminal case has been registered or charge sheeted. Therefore, the fact that the criminal case charged on the basis of the seizure has ended in acquittal, is no reason to hold that the order of confiscation is illegal.

¶41

A reading of Exts.P1 and P2 shows that admittedly the rectified spirit was seized from the vehicle. The contention of the petitioner was that she had taken all precautions to prevent such transportation or misuse of the vehicle and as rightly held in Exts.P1 and P2, the burden to prove this contention was entirely on the petitioner. Apart from making a plea in this respect, no proof whatsoever has been adduced by the petitioner to sustain this plea. Therefore, the conclusion of the respondents in Exts.P1 and P2 that the petitioner failed to prove this contention does not call for any interference.

¶42

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)

JUDGE

vi/

WPC.No. 5552/2006

¶47

:3 :

Indira Pushpan v. Excise Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indira Pushpan v. Excise Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Loyal Construction India (P)Ltd. Vs M/S.Gglosoft Technologies (P)Ltd.

Clementina Vs D.K.Mittal

Pattuvam Grama Seva Sangham Vs a.v.Damodharan

Rasheed Vs Sheik Pareeth

K.P.Radhakrishnan Vs Deputy Collector (La) Thiruvananthapuram

Omana.a.S. Vs State of Kerala & Others