THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.25182 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioner, he is the owner of an auto bearing No.AP 16X 4901 and engaged a driver to ply the auto on hire. On 13.07.2001 the Sub Inspector of Police, Nunna Rural Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.142 of 2001 against him and others alleging illegal transportation of liquor in his auto, under Section 7 (a) read with Section 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and 34 (a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, and the learned Magistrate, after enquiry and trial, acquitted him and the other the accused, by judgment dated 18.02.2005, in C.C.No.441 of 2003. While the matter stood thus, surprisingly, the 2nd respondent issued a notice in R.C.No.B3/1540/01 by putting an ante-date i.e. 13.08.2001 calling upon him to show cause as to why the seized liquor and the auto should not be confiscated and submit a representation within 15 days, which was served on him on 29.07.2009, for which he gave a reply on 03.08.2009 stating that he has nothing to do with the alleged transportation of liquor in his auto. Without considering his reply, the 2nd respondent passed an order in Rc.No.332/2006/B2 dated 21.08.2009 confiscating the auto and the contraband to the State. Questioning the same, he filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, who, by an order dated 15.10.2009, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in so far as the confiscation of the auto is concerned, and also directed him to get the offences compounded for Rs.45,000/-. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. 3. It is apparent that the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, acquitted the petitioner and the other accused in C.C.No.441 of 2003, by judgment dated 18.02.2005. Of course, the order of acquittal made by the criminal court has nothing to do with the proceedings taken up by the respondents. In fact, there is a provision i.e. Section 46(d) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 which clearly states that the result of criminal proceedings though acquittal or conviction or otherwise under the provisions of the Act will have no bearing on the order of confiscation passed under the Act. However, as it is the contention of the petitioner that the auto is of year 1999 and the compounding fee as fixed by the 1st respondent is excessive, this Court reduces the compounding fee from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. 4. With the above modification, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 16th December, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. by two days. (b/o) CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.25182 of 2009 (Disposed of) 16th December, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. by two days. (b/o) CBS