Excise Dept. cannot confiscate a Vehicle merely for the reason that it was used to Transport Liquor: Delhi High Court [Read Judgment]

Quashing the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Excise Commissioner, the Delhi High Court held that the mere fact that the vehicle was used to transport liquor would not be sufficient for confiscating the same if the owner of the vehicle is able to establish that he/she was not involved in the offence.

In the instant case, the vehicle of the petitioner was borrowed by his elder brother, Rahul Arya, who had informed the petitioner that he was taking the vehicle to attend a party in the village, Jonapur. Next day, the vehicle was seized by the police along with the alleged illegal liquor.

The petitioner stated that he had no concern with the alleged liquor or with the driver Jai Singh, who was arrested. The petitioner further contended that the FIR had recorded that the vehicle seized by the police was bearing a Haryana Registration No. HR-2-FHP-0011 and the petitioner’s vehicle had a Delhi Registration No. DL-2FHP-0011. The petitioner also contended that he had been acquitted of the offence under Section 33 of the Act and, therefore, his vehicle ought to be released.

The Financial Commissioner observed that the liquor was transported without permit in the vehicle on the day of its seizure and, therefore, seized the said vehicle under Section 58 of the Act.

Before the Court, the department submitted that the vehicle seized was that of the petitioner but due to a typographical mistake, the FIR mentioned the registration number as HR-2-FHP-0011 at one place but in subsequent paragraphs of the FIR, the correct registration number had been mentioned.

The Court rejected the contention that FIR did not record the registration number of the petitioner’s vehicle and, therefore, no action could be taken for confiscation of the vehicle. It was pointed out that there was a typographical error in the FIR and this Court finds no infirmity with the decision of the Financial Commissioner in accepting the same.

While invalidating the orders relying on a catena of decisions, Justice Vibhu Bakhru said that “In the present case, there appears to be no dispute that the petitioner was not involved in the offence under Section 33 of the Act and had no knowledge that his vehicle was used in transporting liquor from Haryana. Therefore, the petitioner could not be visited with the punition of confiscation of his vehicle.”