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 : 20705 of 2004 Between: Sri Ram Raj Gopal, S/o Krishna Rao, R/o Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal. 3 The Station House Officer, (Prohibition and Excise), Palvancha,Khammam 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 to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records connected to and relating to order dt. 12-10-2004 of the1st respondent in CR.No. 690/2004/CPE/D4 conforming the order of the 2nd respondent dt. 19-11- 2003 in CR.No. 1926 /2002/P & E/B1 conﬁscating lorry bearing No. AP 16 X 5141 of the petitioner araising in Crime No. 279/2002-03 of the 3rd respondent police station ( Prohibition and Excise ) as the same is illegal and arbitrary, violation of the Principles of natural of Justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR RAO 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.20705 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order of ﬁrst respondent dated 16.09.2004 whereby and whereunder the order of second respondent dated 19.11.2003 conﬁscating the petitioner’s lorry bearing No.AP 16 X 5141 was confirmed. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. On 06.10.2002 after receiving credible information about the manufacture of illicitly distilled (ID) liquor, Prohibition and Excise Inspectors of Palavancha and Kothaguem, along with their staﬀ while conducting ID raids proceeded to Shikharam Banja Village. On the outskirts of the Village near a stream, they found some persons manufacturing ID liquor and transporting the same. 50 kgs of black jaggery, 10 kgs of Navasagaram and 5 liters of ID liquor were found. They arrested Bhukya Valiya, a resident of said Village, who disclosed about another place of ID liquor near railway track. On search of said place other quantities of jaggery and other materials were found. One Tejawath Ramu was arrested. The arrestees disclosed the name of Kishan Maniyar as the supplier of black jaggery and Navasagaram etc i.e., material for preparation of ID liquor, regularly on credit basis. Equipped with these statements, the Excise Oﬃcials on their way to excise station saw the lorry near Sponge Iron India Ltd. On search they found 320 lumps of black jaggery each containing 50 kgs (total 16000 kgs). Two persons were sitting in the cabin of the lorry. They disclosed the names of other persons to whom these materials were supplied. Therefore, the lorry was seized under Panchanama and Crime No.279 of 2002- 2003 under Section 7-A read with Section 8(e) of the Andhra Prohibition Act, 1995 (Prohibition Act, for brevity) and Sections 34(e) and 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (Excise Act, for brevity) was registered. The contraband and the vehicle were produced before second respondent. Second respondent issued a show cause notice for confiscation. The petitioner made an application for interim custody. On condition of furnishing bank guarantee the interim custody was ordered without prejudice to the conﬁscation proceedings under Prohibition Act and Excise Act. The show cause notice was issued on 24.10.2002 but the petitioner did not submit any reply/explanation to the show cause notice. Therefore, on perusing the material second respondent passed orders for conﬁscation of the vehicle. The petitioner’s appeal as stated supra was dismissed by ﬁrst respondent conﬁrming second respondent’s orders for confiscation. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two submissions. According to him the conﬁscation order was not preceded by a notice as required under Section 46-A of Excise Act and under Section 13-A of Prohibition Act. Secondly as the lorry was not seized at the place where ID liquor was allegedly manufactured in Shikharam Banja Village, the lorry cannot be connected with the excise offence. Per contra learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, who has produced the original ﬁle from the oﬃce of second respondent, submits that the show cause notice was personally served on the petitioner who has acknowledged the same, but he did not submit any explanation. Nextly he submits when black jaggery was sent to the laboratory it was found to be unﬁt for human consumption and was meant only for ID liquor. The two persons, who were arrested, when the lorry was seized disclosed the involvement of the lorry in transporting black jaggery and other excise material and therefore, the same cannot be disputed. This Court perused the original ﬁle. Notice dated 24.10.2002 was received by the petitioner, as seen. Though it is disputed that signature on said notice is not that of the petitioner, this Court, after comparing the same with reference to the admitted signature of the petitioner on the undertaking given by him before second respondent as well as signature on the aﬃdavit accompanying this writ petition, is not inclined to accept the same. Therefore, the notice is duly served and ﬁrst submission is misconceived. Insofar as second submission is concerned, it is no doubt true that the petitioner’s lorry was not seized at Shikharam Banja Village where at two places ID liquor was found manufactured. When search staﬀ were returning to Palavancha Village, they found the lorry at sponge factory, which was found carrying 16000 kgs of black jaggery. This substance was got analyzed by Government chemical examiner of Prohibition and Excise laboratory, Warrangal. The examiner opined that the jaggery is ﬁt for fermentation for alcohol and unﬁt for human consumption. Even if the lorry was seized at a diﬀerent place and cannot be connected to the place of ID liquor consumption, it does not make any difference. The search of place of manufacture of ID liquor i.e., Shikharam Banja Village and arrest of persons there constitute one oﬀence and seizure of lorry at sponge factory is diﬀerent altogether which constitute another offence. As seen from the show cause notice there was no allegation that the petitioner’s lorry was involved in supplying black jaggery to ID liquor manufacturers of Shikaram Banja Village. In the absence of such allegation, second submission is devoid of any merit. The Commissioner, while dismissing the appeal placed reliance on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Ganesh Traders, Dhermapuri, Karimnagar v District Collector[1] to come to the conclusion that black jaggery seized from the petitioner’s lorry was intended for manufacture of ID liquor. The Commissioner gave the following reasons. A perusal of the records reveals that the way bill, the receipt the Agricultural Market Committee Chittoor and the purchase bill relates to jaggery but does not relate to black jaggery, hence, the contention that the transport of black jaggery was being done with valid documents is not tenable. The black jaggery is not ﬁt for consumption. The Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise Laboratory Warangal examined the samples and reported that the samples contains sugars and extraneous matter. They are jaggery ﬁt for fermentation producing alcohol and unﬁt for consumption. The accused Tejawath Ramu who was caught while preparing ID liquor confessed that the accused Kishan Maniyar was supplying the raw material for the manufacture of I.D. liquor. The person, found in the cabin of the lorry Gugloth Srinivasa Rao, driver of the lorry, also confessed that on the request of Kishan Maniyar, Kirana Merchant, he was transporting the black jagggery from Chittoor District for supplying to the I.D. manufacturers of Pandurangapuram Shikharam Banja. The statements of the driver and other evidence amply proves that the black jaggery was intended only for the purpose of manufacturing I.D. liquor. The appellant has not produced any evidence to the eﬀect that it was being carried in the vehicle for banaﬁde use. The material being carried for the purpose of manufacture of intoxicant can be seized by the oﬃcers as it falls under Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The reasoning in the impugned order is sound and does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30th October, 2008 GHN To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition & Excise, Secretariat Buildings, HYDERABAD. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, HYDERABAD, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, NIZAMABAD, Nizamabad District. 4 2CCs to GP for Prohibition and Excise 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA} [1] 2002(1) ALD 210 (F.B.)