The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.6456 of 2004 Dated 8th July, 2010 Between: Ch.Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, A.P., Hyderabad and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Kowturu Vinaya Kumar 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 orders, dated 20-01-2004 and 20-06-2002, of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. I have heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise representing the respondents. On 16-01-2002, the Station House Officer, P.S., Madhira (R), and staff conducted a route watch at Vekatapur Cross Road. During the course of the said watch, they have intercepted an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 20U 6800, which was coming from Siripuram to Madhira, and on search, they found 80 litres of I.D.Liquor in four plastic cans each containing 20 litres. The contraband along with the vehicle was seized under a cover of panchanama and a case was registered under Section 34 (a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 read with Section 7-A of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995. After following the procedure, a final order was passed by respondent No.2 on 20-06-2002, confiscating the contraband along with the vehicle. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1. The said appeal was dismissed by the said respondent vide his order, dated 20-01-2004. Assailing these two orders, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was the owner of the vehicle, had neither knowledge of nor mens rea in the commission of the excise offence and therefore, his vehicle is not liable for seizure. The learned Counsel further submitted that as neither the contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner nor the petitioner was found travelling in his vehicle, the confiscation is arbitrary. The issue whether knowledge or mens rea of the owner is necessary for confiscation of his vehicle involved in commission of an Excise offence is no longer res integra in view of the judgment in 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 only plea raised by the petitioner that he had no knowledge or mens rea in the commission of the excise offence and therefore, his vehicle is not liable for confiscation is not worthy of acceptance. In the light of the above, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 8th July, 2010 lur [1] (2007) 6 SCC 42