IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.4120 of 2004 Between: N. Chenchi Reddy. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Nagi Reddy for Sri M.Subba Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 22-10-2003 and 28-11-2002 of respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner is the owner of a Jeep (Commander make) bearing registration No. AP 21A 3235. On 13-7- 2001, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal, along with his staff, checked the said jeep at Kranti Nagar, near Venkateswara School, and found seven persons carrying 48 bottles of cheap liquor, each containing 180 ML, in the said vehicle. It was alleged that on being questioned, the said persons stated that they have used the said vehicle for distribution of liquor in MPTC elections; that the said persons were arrested and a criminal case was registered; that the said vehicle along with the contraband was seized; and that confiscation proceedings were also initiated. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared during the confiscation proceedings before respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 passed an order confiscating the said vehicle along with the contraband. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was disposed of by respondent No.1, vide: his order dated 3-10-2002, remanding the matter to respondent No.2 for hearing and disposal of the case afresh. Even after remand, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared on 15-11-2002 and 26-11-2002 before respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 has, once again, ordered for confiscation of the said vehicle, vide: his order dated 28-11-2002. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared before respondent No.1, contended that the petitioner has not authorized his driver to carry liquor in his vehicle; that the petitioner could not submit his reply to the show-cause notice issued by respondent No.2, as he was hospitalized; and that even after remand he could not appear before respondent No.2 due to his involvement in an accident. The explanation submitted by the petitioner, for his failure to submit an explanation to the show-cause notice and his absence during the hearing before respondent No.2, was not accepted by respondent No.1 on the ground that no evidence was produced in support of the said pleas. Respondent No.1 also rejected the petitioner’s contention that as he has not authorized his driver to carry the liquor, the vehicle is not liable for confiscation. At the hearing, Sri Nagi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, strenuously contended that the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged Excise offence; and that he had no knowledge of his vehicle having been used for carrying liquor. The issue whether knowledge or mens rea of the owner is necessary for confiscation of a vehicle involved in commission of an Excise offence is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Sharana Gouda – (2007) 6 SCC 42 - wherein the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the amendment to Section 45 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, which was brought into force with effect from 26-11-1993, whereby the proviso to the said Section was deleted. The Supreme Court held that with the deletion of the said proviso, the knowledge or mens rea on the part of the owner of the property is irrelevant and that the position has changed after omission of the said proviso. In view of the above mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court, the only plea raised by the petitioner that he had not instructed his driver to carry the liquor bottles is not worthy of acceptance. In the light of the above, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-6-2010 MNR