IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5984 of 2004 Between: Shaik Nagur Meera Saheb, S/o Noorjahan Saheb, Meena Villuru Post, Pentapadu Mandalam, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its the Secretary, Department of Prohibition & Excise, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner , Prohibition & Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Dy. Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada, East Godavari 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the impugned action of the Respondents in not returning and permitting the petitioner to withdraw the Fixed Deposit furnished by him as security for interim release of his car No. MH 12 J 3684 even after his acquittal in the criminal proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice etc., and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5984 of 2004 ORDER: Petitioner questions the action of the respondents in not refunding and permitting him to withdraw the Fixed Deposit amount furnished by him as security for interim release of the Car bearing No.MH 12 J 3684 even after his acquittal in the criminal proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner made a fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/-, which was renewed for a sum of Rs.60,000/-, for interim release of the vehicle and subsequently, he was acquitted in C.C.No.695 of 99 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, but the said fixed deposit amount has not been released in spite of his acquittal. There is no dispute that the vehicle in question was involved in an excise offence, which resulted in Cr.No.97 of 1998 of Eluru Rural Police Station and the said vehicle was confiscated by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada, under Section 13 of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995, through proceedings in Rc.No.B2/1573/98, dated 30-07-2001. The said confiscation proceedings have become final as no appeal has been filed before the appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. Whoever is involved in an excise offence is liable for criminal prosecution under the relevant provisions, but the vehicle used in such an offence is liable to be confiscated. The confiscation proceedings are distinct and different from that of the penal provisions, which are punishable. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, it cannot be said that the confiscation proceedings automatically gets nullified and that the petitioner is entitled for release of the fixed deposit amount. Therefore, unless the confiscation proceedings have been questioned or set aside, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to question the confiscation order, if he is entitled to do so. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{AVLR}