THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No. 725 of 2003 Dated: 7-10--2010 Between: The Commissioner of Prohibtion and Excise, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others ….Appellants And K.Laxman …Respondent. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-7-2002 in W.P.No. 13294 of 1998. The respondent is the owner of a Scooter (Bajaj Chetak) bearing No. AP 22 A 9855. According to his assertion, on 17-10-1997, his friend one Devija took his scooter. On the same day, the vehicle was intercepted by the officers of the Excise department of the State and on finding that six litres of illicitly distilled liquor was being transported in a rubber tube carried on the said vehicle, the vehicle was seized. A crime was also registered against the said Devija under Section 7-A and 8-B of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) and the vehicle which was seized was produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar. The respondent herein applied to the Deputy Commissioner for release of the vehicle pending determination of the confiscation proceedings. By order dated 21-1-1998, the application was negatived. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Excise, which was rejected on 2-2-1998. Thereagainst, the respondent preferred W.P.No. 13294 of 1998 challenging the order of the authorities declining to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the respondent. By an interim order in W.P.No. 13294 of 1998, the vehicle was directed to be released in favour of the respondent on the respondent depositing Rs.15,000/- before the Deputy Commissioner. The respondent did deposit the said amount and obtained interim custody of the vehicle. The person accused of carrying the I.D. liquor was acquitted of the criminal charge under Sections 7-A and 8-B of the Act, in C.C.No. 275 of 2000 dated 21-2-2002, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar. When the writ petition was finally heard, the order under appeal has been passed, wherein in view of the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No. 275 of 2000, the learned single Judge implied that the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle could not be maintained and therefore, the respondent was entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited by him, pursuant to the interim order in the writ petition. Section 13 of the Act enacts provisions for confiscation by prohibition and Excise Officers in certain cases including the things liable for confiscation, as enumerated in Section 12 of the Act which include vessels or other vehicles used to hold or carry liquor, the carrying of which is made an offence under the provisions of this Act. Section 13-D of the Act specifically enacts that the result of criminal proceedings either acquittal or conviction or otherwise under the provisions of this Act would have no bearing on the order of confiscation passed under this Act. There is also no requirement of mens rea as in the commission of the substantive offence of carrying of contraband liquor of the owner of a vehicle, which is required for an order of confiscation. A similar issue came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P., v. Sharana Gouda[1]. The Supreme Court held that while there was originally a proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 45 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 whereby it was enjoined that if the property in question is not 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, qua the vehicle, such provision (proviso) was omitted by A.P.Act 4 of 1994 with effect from 26-11-1993 and Section 45 after omission of the provision did not require knowledge of the commission of an Excise offence by the owner to legitimize an order of confiscation of a vehicle involved in the commission of an Excise offence. In the legislative context, the Supreme Court held that for ordering confiscation, it is not necessary that the owner of a vehicle, who is not the principal offender/offender must have knowledge of the commission of the offence or that a vehicle was to be used for the commission of an offence. In the light of the facts and circumstances and in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Sharana Gouda’s case (supra), the respondent-writ petitioner is not entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.15,000/-, as the confiscation proceedings are still pending and these may proceed notwithstanding the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No. 275 of 2000. The appeal is therefore, allowed and the order of the learned single Judge directing refund of the amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited by the respondent with the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mahabubbagar, is set aside. There shall however be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 7th October, 2010 ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J GRR [1] (2007) 6 SCC 42