THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.22646 of 2006 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed by the owner of the truck bearing No.KA 04 A 2434 questioning the order of confiscation dated 23.06.2006 passed in RC.No.29/2006/B1 by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ananthapur as confirmed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad in proceedings No.CR.No.10848/2006/CPE/04 dated 08.09.2006. 2 On 03.01.2006 at bout 12.30 PM the Prohibition and Excise Inspector Uravakonda along with his staff conducted vehicular checking and seized the lorry bearing No.KA 04 – A 2434 at Vidapanakal check post alleging that it was being used for transportation of 14 gunny bags of arrack sachets 600 each (totalling to 8400 sachets) without any valid document. At the time of seizure, there were four occupants in the lorry apart from the driver of the lorry. In view of the said illegal transportation, a case was registered under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Prohibition Act. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector has filed a report before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Ananthapur pursuant to which proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the vehicle under section 45 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and also under Section 13 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. 3 During the pendnecy of the proceedings, the petitioner who is the owner of the said vehicle has approached the respondents for release of the vehicle. Though interim orders were passed by the authorities to furnish bank guarantee by way of fixed deposit receipts equivalent to the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, but the petitioner did not furnish any bank guarantee and the vehicle was not released. However, during the pendency of this Writ Petition, this court directed to release the vehicle on condition of furnishing bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and also furnishing personal or third party security for the remaining 50% value of the vehicle. It is stated that during the pendency of the Writ Petition the petitioner has given bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the vehicle and had also given third party security for the remaining 50% value of the vehicle. 4 When proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle were initiated, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 16.01.2006 calling upon her to show cause as to why the vehicle seized should not be confiscated to the Government under Section 46 of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and under Section 13 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 for violation of the provisions of the said Acts. In response thereto, the petitioner has filed her explanation through her counsel on 20.05.2006 stating that the lorry was being used for transportation of paddy from Sindanoor of Karnataka State to Arni village of Tamilnadu State and that the petitioner is resident of Bangalore and she used to give the lorry for hire by entrusting the same to her driver, who used to book loads and realise hire charges and pay the earnings to her. In the said explanation she precisely stated that she had no knowledge of transportation of arrack sachets in the vehicle and if the driver has undertaken any such transportation illegally, the same is no ground for confiscation of the vehicle. 5 The primary authority i.e. Deputy Commission of Prohibition and Excise, Ananthapur, while disbelieving the explanation offered by the petitioner, recorded a finding that a large quantity of 8,400 sachets of arrack is being transported in the said lorry illegally, has ordered confiscation of the vehicle by the impugned order dated 23.06.2006. As against the said order of confiscation passed by the primary authority, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. However, the appellate authority, while concurring with the findings recorded by the primary authority has dismissed the appeal by order dated 08.09.2006 vide proceedings in CR.No.10848/2006/CPE/04. Hence the present Writ Petition. 6 In this Writ Petition the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is resident of Bangalore and she has no knowledge about the transportation of arrack sachets in the lorry belonging to the petitioner. It is further submitted that neither the sachets nor the vehicle was produced before the competent criminal court after seizure as required under law and in that view of the matter, the order of confiscation itself is illegal. 7 Both the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In this case, it is to be noticed that transportation of huge quantity of 8,400 arrack sachets along with transportation of paddy in the vehicle is not in dispute. It is also to be noticed that at the time of seizure of the vehicle, four persons, who were undertaking transportation of the said arrack sachets, were also arrested and they were figured as A.1 to A.4 in the crime registered against them in that connection and the driver of the vehicle was arrayed as A.5. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the said transportation was without to her knowledge and consent, but in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P. and Anr. Vs. Sharana Gouda[1] and in view of the deletion of the proviso to Section 45 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 the said plea cannot be accepted so as to invalidate the order of confiscation. According to the said section, if transportation of liquor in the vehicle is established, even without to the knowledge of the owner, such vehicle is liable for confiscation. In the judgment referred supra, the apex Court while considering the effect of deletion of the proviso to Section 45 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, held that knowledge of the owner is no criteria while judging the confiscation proceedings. 8 Even the other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arrack sachets and the vehicle were not produced before the competent criminal court is also no ground to invalidate the confiscation order. When the involvement of the vehicle for the purpose of transporting such huge quantity of contraband is not in dispute, even assuming that such vehicle is not produced before the competent Magistrate along with the seized contraband, the same is no ground to invalidate the confiscation order. In this case, in view of the reasons recorded by both the authorities, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition for granting the relief as prayed for and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9 As much as the vehicle in question is released to the petitioner on furnishing of bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the vehicle and the petitioner had also given third party security for the remaining 50% value of the vehicle, it is open for the respondents to take steps to enforce the order of confiscation. 10 For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No order as to costs. --------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 10.11.2011 Kvsn [1] 2007 (6) SCC 42