The Kerala High Court directed to reconsider the matter of confiscation of vehicle alleging transport of contraband liquor.
D Kingston, the petitioner, who is the owner of a vehicle bearing challenged the order issued by the 2nd respondent – Additional Excise Commissioner, confiscating it, under the provisions of the ‘Abkari Act’.
The allegation against the petitioner was that his vehicle was used for the transport of contraband liquor, is baseless and unlawful; and that this is proved by the fact that all accused persons have been acquitted through judgment.
It was explained by the petitioner that the vehicle in question was given to his brother-in-law, under the impression that it was to be used for his travel to meet his wife at Theni, but that it was then intercepted by the officers of the Excise Department, on the allegation that it contained contraband liquor.
Sri.Biju C. Abraham counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that the facts are not as stated by the petitioner because the vehicle was intercepted with contraband liquor and there is cogent evidence to establish the same. He submitted that the accused therein were not exonerated honourably, but only on account of certain technical reasons, which cannot inure to the benefit of the petitioner.
Further argued that when the vehicle was intercepted by the Excise Department with the contraband liquor, the consequences of confiscation would apply automatically and that the two proceedings are parallel and independent of each other.
The Court observed that the provisions relating to the confiscation of the vehicle and criminal offences against the accused are independent of each other when seem to exonerate the accused on the ground that the sample was sent for examination with a lot of delay and the contents were certified to be concentrated Ethyl Alcohol.
A single bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran held that “the matter should attain reconsideration of the 2nd respondent, adverting to Ext.P2, however, making it clear that I am not finding Ext.P7 to be vitiated or to be contrary to the law at this stage, but only that the matter will require to be once again looked into by the competent Authority, before a final order can be issued, especially adverting to Ext.P2.”
While allowing the Writ Petition the Court set aside the order with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner, after affording him an opportunity of being heard.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
