THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.688 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the owner of Jeep (Trax) bearing No.AP21 B 6651 aggrieved by confiscation order, dated 05.07.2007 passed by the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool, in exercise of power conferred under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), as confirmed by the first respondent/appellate authority – Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, by order, dated 29.11.2007 passed in Cr.No.9744/2007/CPE/D-4. On 30.07.2006, during vehicular checks made by the Sub-Inspector of Police along with Staff at Lingamaiah Gudi at the outskirts of Kappatralla Village, the aforesaid vehicle was seized along with 96 Nips of Men’s Choice Fine Whisky bottles. On the ground that the said transportation was without any valid permit and in contravention of Section 7(a) read with Section 8(e) of the Act, a case was registered in Crime No.126 of 2006 on the file of Devanakonda Police Station. Based on such report, the second respondent initiated proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle in question. The petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, was issued notice, dated 02.01.2007 in Rc.No.B1/263/2006 to show cause why the vehicle in question shall not be confiscated. Though she received the show cause notice, she has not filed any explanation to it. Based on the material available on record, the second respondent by recording a finding that the vehicle of the petitioner was used for illegal transportation of liquor and in violation of the provisions of the Act, has ordered confiscation of the vehicle in question vide his order, dated 05.07.2007. As against the said order, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the first respondent, who in turn also by order, dated 29.11.2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of confiscation. In this Writ Petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in question was used for transportation without any knowledge to the owner. It is also submitted that the offence was compounded, as such, there is no basis for ordering confiscation of the vehicle in question. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents that as the transportation of liquor was without any permit and in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the second respondent passed the order of confiscation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the first and second respondents. In this case, even before the authorities, the petitioner has not disputed the transportation of liquor in the vehicle in question. Once the vehicle of the petitioner was used for transportation without transit permit and in violation of the provisions of the Act, the same is liable for confiscation under Section 13 of the Act. Though it is the allegation of the petitioner that the vehicle was used without her knowledge, the same is no ground to invalidate the confiscation order. It is to be noted that the Supreme Court has considered the similar aspect in the case o f COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE v. SHARANA GOUDA (CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1137 of 2002, dated 05.06.2007) and held that if the vehicle is used for transportation of liquor illegally, such vehicle is liable for confiscation. Even the offence against the accused in the criminal case is compounded, the same has no effect on the confiscation proceedings. From the above, it is evident that in view of involvement of a vehicle in the commission of offence under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, irrespective of compounding of the offence, the authority can pass the order of confiscation of the said vehicle. In this case, in view of the reasons recorded by the primary authority as well as the appellate authority in the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th NOVEMBER, 2011. kvni