THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1220 of 2002 DATED:17-08-2009 A.Krishna. …..Appellant-petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents-Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.6164 of 2002 assails the order dated 06-06-2002 dismissing his Writ Petition. 2. The admitted facts are that the lorry of the appellant bearing No.AP 11-T 7569 was apprehended on 26-07-2000 at about 11.45 p.m. by the Excise authorities and it was found carrying 24 quarts and 23 pints of non-duty paid liquor. Crime No.119 of 2000-01 was registered under Section 34 (a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). 3. The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada, East Godavari District, aggrieved by the seizure of the lorry, owing to its involvement in the crime. By order dated 06-11-2000, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada, exercised the powers vested in him under Section 13 of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 46 of the Act and confiscated the lorry. Aggrieved by the confiscation of his lorry, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, A.P. Hyderabad, which was dismissed by order dated 15-01-2002. Both the above orders were subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition. 4. The learned Judge, after perusing the material on record, was of the opinion that no exception could be taken to the action of the Excise authorities, confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. 5. In the present appeal, it is contended before us by Sri A.V.Sesha Sai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that his client had no knowledge of the alleged offence and therefore he could not be held responsible for the same. 6. He submitted that a reading of the order passed by the authorities below would indicate that this aspect has not been gone into by either of them. In appeal, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad opined that the knowledge or innocence of the owner of the vehicle is not a material aspect under Section 45 of the Act. Further, he recorded the fact that no evidence had been produced to show lack of knowledge on the part of the appellant. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in COMMISIONER, PROHIBITION & EXCISE & ANOTHER v. SHARANA GOUDA, A.P.[1], wherein the Supreme Court held that after deletion of the proviso to Section 45 of the Act, the question of mens rea and knowledge ceased to be of importance insofar as confiscation under Section 45 of the Act is concerned. It is relevant to note that the proviso which was deleted with effect from 26-11-1993 under the A.P.Act 4 of 1994 reads as follows: “Provided that, if anything specified in Clause (3) is not the property of the offender, it shall not be confiscated if the owner thereof had no reason to believe that such offence was being or was likely to be committed” 8. In view of the omission of the proviso to Section 45 of the Act with effect from 26-11-1993, not only is the aspect of mens rea irrelevant for the purpose of confiscation under Section 45 of the Act but also the knowledge or ignorance of the appellant with regard to the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, the offence in the present case having been committed in the year 2000, long after the deletion of the proviso to Section 45 of the Act, the appellant cannot plead lack of knowledge as a ground to free himself of the liability for confiscation of his lorry. 9. The Writ Appeal is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 17th August, 2009. Tsy [1] 2007(6) SCC 42