THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.16055 of 2008 ORDER: It appears, while the 3rd respondent and his staff were conducting route watch on 27.06.2002 at Chennarajupodu Cross road on Y.Kota bus road, Obulavaripally Mandal, they found 40 litres of I.D. arrack in two plastic cans in the auto bearing No.AP04 V 1007, belonging to the petitioner, and as such, registered a case against one Yugandhar and Mahaboob Basha (driver of the auto) in crime No.64/2006-07 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and seized the said vehicle. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the authorities, seeking interim custody of the vehicle, and on the said application, the 2nd respondent, by his order dated 24.12.2006, ordered the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16259 of 2007 and the same was disposed of by orders dated 31.07.2007 modifying the orders of the 2nd respondent to the effect that the petitioner shall furnish a fixed deposit receipt for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and execute a personal bond for the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/-. Pursuant thereto, as per the orders dated 31.07.2007 of this Court, the petitioner was given custody of the vehicle. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent, by orders dated 29.10.2007, directed confiscation of the vehicle. Challenging the said order, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Department, Hyderabad, however the appeal was dismissed on 03.07.2008 confirming the orders dated 29.10.2007 of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that though he is the owner of the said auto, he is not involved in the alleged offence and he had no knowledge or consent for the alleged offence and that since the vehicle was used by a third party, the proceedings for confiscation are not warranted. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate orders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Excise and Prohibition appearing for the respondents. The principles of law on the point are no more res integra. This Court, in Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise vs. Sharana Gouda[1] held that if any property is involved in a crime registered under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, which is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, then that property is liable to be confiscated even though the owner of that property had no reason to believe that such offence was being or was likely to be committed. Since the facts of Commissioner’s case stated supra are similar to the facts of this case, no interference is warranted with the order passed by the primary authority i.e., 2nd respondent and as confirmed by the appellate authority i.e., 1st respondent, and the writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU 07.12.2010 v v [1] 2007 (6) SCC 42