IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5114 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.U.SHANAVAS,S/O.UNNEENKUTTY, MUNDASSERI HOUSE,ERUMAMUNDA,KURUMBALANGODE VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G MR.R.SUDHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXCISE,THIRUVANANTHAPUR AM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, MALAPPURAM. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5114 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KL-10 AB 6760. 2. On 11/04/2009, the Assistant Excise Inspector and party stopped the vehicle and on search, recovered 16.5 litres of IMFL from the vehicle owned and driven by the petitioner along with a passenger. Thereupon proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the Abkari Act for confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioner was issued notice and was heard and Ex.P2 order was passed by the 3rd respondent confiscating the vehicle. Against Ext.P2, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. Appeal was considered and rejected by Ext.P3 order. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, it would appear that the vehicle was temporarily released to the petitioner on Bank Guarantee. In view of Exts.P2 & P3, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilamboor, before whom the criminal case is pending, has by Ext.P4 required the petitioner to produce the vehicle. It is in WP(C) No.5114/2010 -2- these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P2, P3 & P4. A reading of Exts.P2 & P3 show the fact that the vehicle was owned and driven by the petitioner when recovery of IMFL was admittedly effected. This certainly makes out a case for confiscation. Then the only question is whether the petitioner could have been given the benefit of Section 67 C (2) of the Abkari Act. Apart from stating that the petitioner was unaware of the presence of liquor in his vehicle, the petitioner did not prove this contention by adducing any evidence. It is the settled position that burden of proof to be discharged under Section 67 C of the Act is on the person who claims the benefit of the Section. In this case, the petitioner did not discharge his burden in any manner. In such a situation, I cannot find fault with Ext.P2 order of the 3rd respondent or Ext.P3 appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent. Necessarily therefore, these orders and also Ext.P4 will have to be sustained and I do so. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg