THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 3799 OF 2004 Dated 6th July, 2010 Between: K.Nooka Raju …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise and Two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.Upendra Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 22.01.2004 and 01.05.2003 of respondents 1 and 2 respectively. I have heard Sri C.Upendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner is owner of mini lorry bearing No.AP5T-7497. On 12.02.2003, the Enforcement staff of Chintapally Excise Station Limits, Visakhapatnam District seized 20 litres of I.D liquor from the possession of two persons by name Meka Nageswara Rao and Ch.Surya Rao at Pentapadu Village limits. On the same day, at 11.15 a.m, the Enforcement staff conducted further raids at Doddikonda Village and found two live stills and seized 20 litres of I.D arrack, 396 kgs of jaggery in 20 blocks from the possession of two persons by name V.Chiranjeevi and G.Abhaya Dora and destroyed two running stills. During the investigation, the persons involved in the illicit activity stated that they have purchased the jaggery from K.Sathi Babu, who supplies the same to the I.D arrack manufacturers by keeping the jaggery in a lorry on weekly shandy day at Chintapally. On that information, a raid was conducted on the same day by the Prohibition and Excise Officials at Hanuman Junction, Chintapally and found lorry bearing No.AP5T- 7497 with 2396 kgs of jaggery and 200 kgs of ammonia and the Excise officials also found K.Sathi Babu and S.Raja Rao in the lorry. As necessary permits and waybills were not produced, the lorry was seized and confiscation proceedings were initiated. In reply to the show cause issued to the petitioner, he stated that he had no knowledge of commission of the offence. Respondent No.2, after considering the said explanation, passed order on 01.05.2003 directing confiscation of the petitioner’s lorry along with the contraband. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by respondent No.1, by his order dated 22.01.2004. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition questioning both these orders. At the hearing, Sri C.Upendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged Excise offence; and that he had no knowledge of his vehicle having been used for carrying the contraband. The issue whether knowledge or mens rea of the owner is necessary for confiscation of a vehicle involved in commission of an Excise offence is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Sharana Gouda – (2007) 6 SCC 42 - wherein the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the amendment to Section 45 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, which was brought into force with effect from 26.11.1993, whereby the proviso to the said Section was deleted. The Supreme Court held that with the deletion of the said proviso, the knowledge or mens rea on the part of the owner of the property is irrelevant and that the position has changed after omission of the said proviso. In view of the abovementioned judgment of the Supreme Court, the only plea raised by the petitioner that he had no knowledge of commission of offence is not worthy of acceptance. In the light of the above, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th July, 2010 vrn