IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 15332 of 2005 Between: Bonagiri Venkanna, S/o.Lachaiah, R/o.Nandigudem Village & Mandal, Nalgonda district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Station House Officer, Excise Station, Kodad, Kodad, Nalgonda district. ..RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ of mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent No.1 herein not returning the Fixed Deposit Certiﬁcate to the petitioner pursuant to the representation dt.23-5-2005 and inspite of disposal of the C.C.No.52/2004 dt.24-1-2005 on the ﬁle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad Nalgonda district as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Law, and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to return the Fixed Deposit Certiﬁcate to the petitioner, and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALLE NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.15332 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is owner of Auto bearing No.AP-20-U- 4998. On 24.01.2001, second respondent seized the vehicle after ﬁnding the auto transporting ID liquor and a criminal case under Section 8(b) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (the Act, for brevity) is registered. The petitioner ﬁled writ petition being W.P.No.4790 of 2001 seeking a direction for interim custody. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing ﬁrst respondent to release the vehicle on condition of petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner did furnish bank guarantee and vehicle was released by way of interim custody. Subsequently, criminal case against the driver of the petitioner and others ended in acquittal by reason of Judgment of Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad, Nalgonda District in C.C.No.520 of 2004, dated 24.01.2005. Therefore, petitioner submitted an application to ﬁrst respondent to return the ﬁxed deposit receipt (FDR) for Rs.40,000/-, in vain. Therefore, present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to refund/return the FDR. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of ﬁrst respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, it is stated that after the vehicle was produced before him, ﬁrst respondent issued show cause notice for conﬁscation. The petitioner submitted explanation. After considering explanation, ﬁrst respondent passed orders on 22.09.2001 under Section 13 of the Act conﬁscating auto rickshaw to Government. Appeal ﬁled by petitioner was dismissed by Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on 10.02.2003. Reliance is placed on Section 13-D for opposing the prayer. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Excise. As rightly pointed out by learned Government Pleader under Section 13-D of the Act, acquittal of owner of vehicle in a criminal case will have no bearing on the order of conﬁscation passed under Section 13 of the Act. In N.Ram Reddy v Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise of A.P, Hyderabad [1], this Court held that acquittal of the person involved in excise oﬀence does not result in release of conﬁscated vehicles. Applying the same principle, this Court holds that petitioner has no right to seek return of FDR for Rs.40,000/-. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.10.2008 pln [1] 2008 (5) ALD 529