CWP No.13210 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No.13210 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: 11.03.2010 M/s. Frost Falcon Distillery Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. By way of present writ petition, petitioner is assailing orders dated 24.7.2006 (Annexure P-3), 11.1.2007 (Annexure P-5) and 27.6.2007 (Annexure P-7) whereby penalty of Rs.17 lacs under Section 61(1)(aaa) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was imposed. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of checking on 18.5.2006, Vehicle No.HR-37-A-1756 was checked near Police Naka Dalyanpur and it was detected that the driver of the vehicle was carrying CWP No.13210 of 2007 2 300 cases (Quarts) of country liquor without valid excise permit and pass. The vehicle alongwith 300 cases of liquor was handed over to the Excise Inspector, Karnal by the police on 18.5.2006. Driver of the vehicle alongwith liquor was produced before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Collector (Excise), Karnal. Verification of the liquor was conducted and it was found that the liquor is of Saunfi special and Murthal No.1 Branch bearing Batch No.112 and 102, respectively. On 22.5.2006, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Karnal was directed to specify the role of M/s. Rana Trading Co., Karnal because the driver of the vehicle in his statement pinpointed that the said liquor was loaded from the premises of M/s. Rana Trading Co., Karnal and was asked to submit report upto 29.5.2006. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Collector (Excise), Karnal, vide impugned order dated 24.7.2006 imposed fine of Rs.18 lacs having found the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Section 61(1)(aaa) of the Act. In appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Collector (Excise), Karnal, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner vide impugned order dated 11.1.2007 upheld the order of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Collector (Excise), Karnal, however, remanded the matter to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Collector (Excise), Karnal for apportionment of the penalty amount. After the remand, penalty of Rs.17 lacs was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 27.6.2007. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. CWP No.13210 of 2007 3 Undisputedly, Vehicle No.HR37-A-1756 was not loaded from the premises of the petitioner's distillery rather had originated from the premises of Rana Trading Co., Kaithal. Consignment is always loaded in the presence of Incharge Excise and Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer with relevant documents, valid excise permits and passes. This fact that consignment is always loaded in the presence of the officers of the Excise and Taxation with relevant documents, valid excise permits and passes is not disputed by the respondents. In Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.528 of 2010, decided on 4.3.2010), this Court had the occasion to interpret Section 61(1)(aaa) of the Act and has held that if distillery is not guilty of importing or exporting or transporting or was not found in possession of any liquor then no action can be taken under Section 61(1)(aaa) of the Act. In the present case also, no liquor was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. At the time of taking out the liquor from the premises of the petitioner, it was checked and relevant entry was made in Forms D-20 or D-20-A as per Rule 114 of the Punjab Distillery Rules (Haryana). Vehicle No.HR37-A-1756 never originated from the premises of the petitioner, hence the petitioner cannot be held guilty. In view of the above, impugned orders cannot be sustained. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 11.03.2010 sk.