It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and a copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle has been brought on record, as Annexure-2. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not travelling in the vehicle in question at the time of seizure and liquor, if any, was seized from the passengers’ side of the said vehicle. Hence, the presumption of innocence in his favour. Moreover, the seizure has been made by an A.S.I., whereas, Section 73(e) of the Act stipulates that the seizure cannot be made by an officer below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police and Section 58(1) of the Act further mandates that anything which is liable to be confiscated, report of the same has to be transmitted without without a reasonable delay by the seizing or the detaining authority to the District Magistrate of the jurisdiction. In the present case, seizing and the detaining authority is the A.S.I., Lalan Kumar, whereas, paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No.2 reflects that the report has been transmitted by the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad. It is lastly contended that the writ application was registered on 02.09.2019, it was
