Single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a vehicle used for unauthorized liquor transport, rejecting the argument that the owner's lack of knowledge invalidates the order under the A.P. Prohibition Act and referencing SC precedent.
Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No.10104 of 2006
Date: March 6, 2012
Between:
P. Ramakrishna Reddy
… Petitioner
And
The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and others
… Respondents
Order:
Petitioner has questioned the order dated 24.04.2006 passed in Cr.No.12265/2005/CPE/D4, by the
1st respondent, Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad, affirming the order dated 02.07.2005 passed in Rc.No.B1/209/2005, by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP-21V-5715 – Tata Sumo – which was intercepted and seized by the Prohibition and Excise officials of Kodumuru on 11.05.2005 at about 5.30 p.m., on the ground that it was used for transportation of 9000 arrack sachets of Karnataka State. A case in Cr.No.16/2005-06 was registered on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Kodumuru, for the offence under Section 7(A) read with Section 8 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 for unauthorized transportation of liquor. Pursuant to seizure of the vehicle, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 13-A of the Act. Petitioner filed his explanation to the show cause notice. The primary authority, i.e. the 2nd respondent, by recording a finding that the vehicle in question was involved in illegal transportation of liquor, ordered its confiscation by order dated 02.07.2005 passed in Rc.No.B1/209/2005. As against the same, petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, who, by his order dated 24.04.2006 passed in
Cr.No.12265/2005/CPE/D4, rejected the same.
The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner had no knowledge about using of the vehicle in question for transportation of arrack. It is stated that as the petitioner is not connected to the said transportation of arrack, the order of confiscation of vehicle, passed by the 2nd respondent, as affirmed by the 1st respondent, is illegal. A perusal of the material on record reveals that the vehicle in question, belonging to the petitioner, was used for transportation of liquor in violation of the provisions under the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 as amended by Act 35 of 1995. It is not a case where the said transportation was supported by any valid permit. While it is true that the petitioner was not in the vehicle when it was seized, but it was driven by the driver appointed by him. When usage of the said vehicle, for unauthorized transportation of arrack, is established, the only ground of the petitioner that he has no knowledge about the said transportation cannot be sustained, and on that ground the order of confiscation, as confirmed by the appellate authority, cannot be invalidated. Further, in the judgment in the case of Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P.
and Anr. Vs. Sharana Gouda[1] , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while considering the proviso to sub-section (2) to Section 45 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, held as under:
“The effect of omission of the proviso does not appear to have been considered by the High Court. When the proviso was part of the statute, it was provided that any thing specified in Clause (3) of Section 45 is not the property of the offender, it shall not be confiscated if the owner thereof had no reason to believe that such offence was being or was likely to be committed. At that stage there was a prohibition on confiscation if owner of the property in question had no reason to believe that such offence was being or was likely to be committed. This was the position if offender was not the owner of the property. The position has changed after omission of the proviso. The High Court does not appear to have kept this aspect in view. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set aside.”
As much as it is established that the vehicle in question was used for illegal transportation of liquor and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, so as to interfere with the same, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J)
March 6, 2012 MRR
[1] (2007)6SCC427
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of vehicle confiscation for illegal liquor transportation needs to be entertained.
Whether the petitioner's lack of knowledge in the vehicle seizure invalidates the confiscation order.
Whether the High Court's order upholding confiscation should be set aside under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P. and Anr. Vs. Sharana GoudaReferred¶15
Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P. and Anr. Vs. Sharana Gouda (2007)6SCC427
4 provisions across 3 enactments
P. Ramakrishna Reddy
The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of A.P., Hyderabad
Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool
R. Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
