The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.6629 of 2003 Dated 5th July, 2010 Between: Guguloth Mohan Rao …Petitioner And 1.The Commissioner f Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Badana Bhaskara Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 19-02-2003 and 28-02-2001, of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner is the owner of auto bearing registration No.AP 20U 4003, which was found carrying 40 litres of ID liquor in two white polythene packets. The auto along with the contraband was seized on 27-12-2000 by respondent No.3- Prohibition and Excise Inspector, under a cover of Panchanama and a case was registered on the same day. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings initiated for confiscation of the auto and raised the only ground that he had no knowledge of commission of offence. The plea of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 and by his order, dated 28- 02-2001, he directed confiscation of the auto. The appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 having been dismissed vide his order, dated 19-02-2003, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised two contentions:- (1) that the petitioner was not given notice as required under Section 13 A of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995, and therefore, the confiscation proceedings are vitiated and; (2) that as the petitioner had no knowledge or mens rea regarding commission of offence, his auto cannot be confiscated. As regards the first contention, the learned Counsel fairly conceded that no plea in this regard was raised either before respondent Nos.1 and 2 or in the affidavit filed in this Writ Petition. Unless a plea to that effect was raised, it is not permissible for the learned Counsel to advance this plea, which is purely a question of fact. In this view of the matter, this contention of the learned Counsel is without any merit. With regard to the second contention, the same is equally meritless. 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 i n Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Sharana Gouda[1] 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 plea raised by the petitioner that as he had no knowledge o r mens rea regarding commission of offence, his auto cannot be confiscated, 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 dismissed accordingly. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 16-04-2003, is vacated and WPMP.No.8644 of 2003 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th July, 2010 lur [1] (2007) 6 SCC 42