IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8567 of 2004 Between: Smt. G. Narasingamma W/o. Laxmaiah, Goud R/o. Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Police Station, Mahabubnagar 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 writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Cr.No.B3/827/99, dated 18-4-201, as conﬁrmed by the 1st respondent in Cr.No.2101/2001/CPE/D4, dated 27-11-2003, confiscating the petitioner vehicle Lorry bearing No. AP-9U-6009, as being arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional and consequently set-aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.LAKSHMA REDDY 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.8567 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is owner of lorry bearing No.AP 9U 6009 at the given point of time it was given on hire basis to TFT licencees (toddy for tapper) of Chinna Jatram and Kottampally Villages for transportation of toddy. On 31.03.1999 when the lorry was allegedly transporting toddy from tope to depot, a case in Crime No.36 of 1999 was registered under Sections 34(a), 36, 51(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (the Act, for brevity). It was ultimately treated as C.C.No.491 of 2000 and all the accused were acquitted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet, by judgment dated 26.04.2002. In the meanwhile even while the criminal case was pending, second respondent initiated action under Sections 45 and 46 of the Act for conﬁscation of the vehicle involved in the oﬀence. Giving a show cause notice and considering the explanation, by order dated 18.04.2001 second respondent passed orders conﬁscating the petitioner’s vehicle along with eighty crates of toddy with empty bottles. The petitioner preferred an appeal before ﬁrst respondent, who by order dated 27.11.2003 dismissed the same. This is assailed in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a mere allegation that petitioner’s vehicle/lorry was used for commission of an oﬀence under the Act, the vehicle cannot be conﬁscated. Secondly he submits that whatever be the case when the accused in C.C.No.491 of 2000 were acquitted, again the power under Sections 45 and 46 of the Act cannot be used by the authorities for conﬁscation of the vehicle. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise has ﬁled counter-affidavit of the respondents. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in N.Ram Reddy v Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise of A.P., Hyd.[1] he submits that even when a criminal case is ended in acquittal, still the vehicle and other property involved or connected with excise oﬀence can be seized under confiscation. It is no doubt true that the petitioner gave the lorry on hire basis to TFT licencees. The same was allegedly used for transporting toddy illegally without valid permission. Therefore, it certainly becomes the property liable for conﬁscation in accordance with Section 45 read with Section 46 of the Act. Even if the knowledge of the petitioner is absent, in such an event second respondent is not without the power to pass orders for confiscation. Secondly as held by this Court in N.Ram Reddy (supra) even when a person is acquitted in a criminal case, under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (Prohibition Act, for brevity) the property can be conﬁscated. The provisions of Prohibition Act which were considered by this Court in N.Ram Reddy (supra) are in pari materia with Sections 45 and 46 of the Act. Therefore, the principle laid down therein is applicable in equal force, which reads as under. A perusal of joint reading of Sections 12, 13 and 13-D of the Prohibition Act goes to show that notwithstanding the launching of criminal case and without any reference to the acquittal or conviction, the initiation of conﬁscation proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise is independent and separate. Though for a criminal action the oﬀender is acquitted, at the same time, the vehicle and the goods seized by means of which the liquor is transported, are liable for conﬁscation. Under Section 13(1) irrespective of the initiation of criminal proceedings, the goods seized, which are liable for conﬁscation, shall be produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise without any unreasonable delay and on production of the seized property, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, if satisﬁed that an oﬀence has been committed under the Prohibition Act, then such goods seized, which are liable for conﬁscation under Section 12, can be confiscated. For the above reasons, this Court does not ﬁnd any illegality or inﬁrmity in the impugned order challenged in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23rd October, 2008 GHN To 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. 4 2CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ND} [1] 2008 (5) ALD 529