IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24257 of 2004 Between: 1 D. Parthasarathy, S/o Saravanan, C/o M. Natesh, Advocate, 475/A, 2nd Main 'E'Cross, M.E.S. Road, Bangalore, Karnataka. 2 S.Mohammad Sardar, S/o Basha, C/o M. Natesh, Advocate, 475/A, 2nd Main 'E'Cross, M.E.S. Road, Bangalore, Karnataka. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise P.S., Anantapur, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the respondents in conﬁscating vehicles bearing Lorry numbers KA 01/7487 and PY 01 H2134 by order in Rc.No. 44/2000/B2, dt. 10-2-2003 passed by the 2nd respondent and conﬁrmed in C.R.No. 5120/2003./CPE, dt. 11-2-2004 by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the respondents to release our vehicles bearing Nos. KA 01/7487 and PT 01 H2134 in our favour, forthwith and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioners: MR,KUNCHEAMMAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24257 of 2004 ORDER: First petitioner is owner of a tanker bearing No.KA 01 7487 (ﬁrst tanker) and second petitioner is owner of a tanker bearing No.PY 01 H2134 (second tanker). These tankers were stopped for checking by the Prohibition & Excise Sub- Inspectors of Enforcement, Ananthapur, on 01.12.1999. The Inspecting staﬀ found 30 litres of rectiﬁed spirit from ﬁrst tanker and 25 litres of rectiﬁed spirit from second tanker, which was being transported without valid permit under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (the Act, for brevity) read with Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rectiﬁed Spirit Rules, 1971. Therefore, a case, being Crime No.68 of 1999-2000, was registered under the above provisions and the matter was placed before second respondent. After issuing two show cause notices second respondent passed orders on 10.02.2003 ordering conﬁscation of two tankers to the Government. Be it also noted that during pendency of conﬁscation proceedings before second respondent, the petitioners ﬁled W.P.No.125 of 2000 in which this Court passed orders of interim custody of the vehicles on furnishing bank guarantee for the value as ﬁxed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. It is also on record that though such value was ﬁxed the petitioners did not furnish bank guarantee. As they did not do so, the vehicles were auctioned on 18.03.2004 and amounts were realized. Against the orders of second respondent the petitioners preferred an appeal before ﬁrst respondent, who on 04.02.2004 conﬁrmed the orders of confiscation. Hence, the present writ petition. A detailed counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the tankers were engaged for transporting rectiﬁed spirit from Venkateswara Distilleries, Malchapura Bidar District to Shashi Distilleries, Bennargatta Road, Bangalore under a permit issued by the Joint Commissioner of Excise, Distilleries and Breweries, dated 04.11.1999 and that said permit expired on 02.12.1999. The drivers and cleaners of two tankers, who were arrested, disclosed that on instructions of Management of Shasi Distilleries, Bangalore to bring rectiﬁed spirit on the same permit, they, after unloading the rectiﬁed spirit at Bangalore, were proceeding to Bidar when the vehicles were checked at Eguvapalli Village in Garladinne Mandal. It is also stated that after receiving show cause notices, the counsel for the petitioners appeared before second respondent and pleaded that the petitioners had no knowledge and they had nothing to do with the oﬀence or illegal transport of the rectified spirit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in V. Narayana Rao v State of A.P. [1] when mens rea of the owner of the vehicle is absent, such vehicle cannot be conﬁscated. It is pleaded that if owner had no knowledge of the vehicle being used for commission of excise oﬀence, Section 45 of the Act and Section 12 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 have no application. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise brought to the notice of this Court the decision of the Supreme Court in Commr., Prohibition and Excise v Sharana Gouda[2]. The question is no more res integra. I n Sharana (supra) the Supreme Court held that mens rea or knowledge of owner is immaterial when a vehicle is involved in commission of excise oﬀence. Having regard to the amendment by the Andhra Pradesh Act No.4 of 1994, whereby the proviso to Section 45(3) of the Act was omitted, the Supreme Court, while reversing the Full Bench view, held that mens rea or knowledge of the owner of the vehicle involved in excise oﬀence is irrelevant for the purpose conﬁscation of the vehicle. Therefore, such plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted. In view of the binding authority, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24th October, 2008 GHN To 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise P.S., Anantapur, Anantapur District. 4 2CCs to GP for Prohibition and Excise. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{AVLR} [1] 2002 (5) ALT 91 (FB) = 2002(6) ALD 163 (FB) [2] (2007) 6 SCC 42