IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3089 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JITHESH C.P., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.GOPI C.P., HOUSE NO.II - 412, EAST ELERI PANCHAYATH, NARKILAKKADU P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, OFFICE OPPOSITE OF MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OPPOSITE OF MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE AT COLLECTORATE, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 3089 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T Petitioner's vehicle has been confiscated under Section 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act on allegation of commission of an abkari offence with that vehicle. By Ext. P1, the 3rd respondent passed order of confiscation. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the 2nd respondent, who rejected the appeal by Ext. P2 order. The petitioner sought to invoke the suo motu power of revision of the Excise Commissioner, which was also rejected by Ext. P3. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 to P3 in this writ petition. 2. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that before passing Ext. P1 order, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause. In view of that contention, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the petitioner had been served with a show cause notice. Today, the learned Government Pleader produced before me a copy of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 18-5-2006, in which there is an endorsement by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner had received that notice. The same was shown to the counsel for the petitioner, who could not controvert the same. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause before Ext. P1 order was passed, is not correct. In fact, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice also. That being so, the onus of proving that the petitioner had taken all precautions against the user of the vehicle for commission of an abkari offense rests squarely with the petitioner in view of Section 67C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that he had in fact taken appropriate precaution in the matter and he had no knowledge about the liquor which was loaded in the vehicle by a passenger. He took W.P.C. No. 3089/2009 -: 2 :- the contention that when the excise party directed to stop the vehicle, the petitioner stopped the vehicle and only when the liquor was seized from the autorickshaw he came to understand that the passenger was carrying illicit liquor. But, this is also belied by the following finding in Ext. P5: “On perusing the case records, it is seen that the statement of the RC owner is false and contradictory. In the seizure mahazar, it is clearly stated that the vehicle was not stopped when the police showed signal to stop the vehicle and it was seized after chasing it for about 1 K.M. The driver of the vehicle and his companion were tried to ran away from the spot. Moreover, the arrack was filled in six plastic cans and which were kept in the space provided in the back of the rear seat and on the plat form. All it proves beyond doubt that the offense committed by means of the aforesaid autorikshaw was with the full knowledge and connivance of its RC owner.” The petitioner himself was the driver of the vehicle. That being so, the second contention of the petitioner also stands rebutted by cogent evidence. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.