Smt.Ch.Rani v. Chittamur, Nellore Dist
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 s. 34(a)
Judgment
Cause title
Between: Smt. Ch.Rani W/o.Sreenivasulu 2-2-24/1,Rajagopalapuram Naidupet, Nellore Dist. ..... PET IT IONER AND 1 Commissioner of Proh&Excise AP, Hyderabad. 2 Dy. Commissioner of Proh&Excise AP, Guntur. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police Chittamur Police Station Chittamur, Nellore Dist .....RESPONDENT
S Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declairng the action of the 2nd Respondent, dt 22-12-2001, and consequential orders of the 1st Respondent, dt 23-10-2003 confirming the orders of the 2nd Respondent, as being arbitrary, ullegal and unreasonable, apart from contrary to the law alid down by this Hon' ble High Court and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKAT A RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBIT ION & EXCISE T he Court made the following Order: T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PET IT ION No.22479 of 2004
ORDER:
The petitioner is owner of an ambassador car bearing No.MH 03F 63. Third respondent during vehicle check seized the vehicle allegedly carrying 144 bottles of IML each bottle containing 180 ml of liquor without permit. Crime No.45 of 2001 under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (the Act, for brevity) was registered. The matter was reported to second respondent. On condition of the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.70,000/- the vehicle was released by way of interim custody to her. Subsequent thereto a show cause issued and an order was passed on notice was 22.12.2001 by second respondent ordering confiscation under Section 46(2) of the Act. In her explanation, the petitioner pleaded that she has no knowledge and that passengers travelling in the car allegedly kept the liquor bottles in the car. Be that as it is aggrieved by the order of confiscation the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 46-C of the Act. The same having been dismissed by first respondent by order dated 23.10.2003, instant writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of mens rea and knowledge directly contributable to the petitioner and when the contravened liquor was carried on in her car by the passengers, the petitioner’s vehicle cannot be seized for the purpose of confiscation. The submission, however, cannot be accepted in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P. [1] v Sharana Gouda wherein, while overruling a Full Bench judgment of this Court, the Supreme Court held that mens rea or knowledge of the owner of the vehicle is irrelevant for the purpose of confiscation under Section 46(2) of the Act. In view of the binding authority, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24th October, 2008 GHN To 1 Commissioner of Proh&Excise AP, Hyderabad. 2 Dy. Commissioner of Proh&Excise AP, Guntur. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police Chittamur Police Station Chittamur, Nellore Dist 4 2CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MVK} [1] (2007) 6 SCC 42
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.