K.Haritha Reddy v. The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Hari Sreedhar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside orders, dated 22-01-2003 and 31-07-2001, of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. I have heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise representing the respondents. On 20-01-2010, the Prohibition and Excise Officials of the State Task Force along with the Station House Officer, Zaheerabad, intercepted Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP 12 A 9577 on NH-9, near railway gate, Zaheerabad Town, and found 770 Bulk litres (Bls) of rectified spirit in 22 plastic cans each containing 35 litres. The contraband along with the vehicle was seized under a cover of panchanama and a case was registered on 20- 01-2001 under Section 34 (a) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

After following the procedure, a final order was passed by respondent No.2 on 31-07-2001, confiscating the contraband along with the vehicle. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1. The said appeal was dismissed by the said respondent vide his order, dated 22-01-2003. Assailing these two orders, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was the owner of the vehicle, had neither knowledge of nor mensrea in the commission of the excise offence and therefore, his vehicle is not liable for seizure. The learned Counsel further submitted that as the contraband was not seized from the possession of the petitioner or the petitioner was not found travelling in his vehicle, the confiscation is arbitrary. 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 [1] 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 above-mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court, the only plea raised by the petitioner that he had no knowledge or mensrea in the commission of the excise offence and therefore, his vehicle is not liable for seizure is not worthy of acceptance. In the light of the above, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be directed to be paid the interest accrued on the FDR. This request of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted in view of the specific order passed by this Court on 26-07-2007 whereby while permitting the petitioner to sell the vehicle, this Court stipulated the condition that the petitioner shall have no claim over the deposit and the interest accrued thereon. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled to interest. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 8th July, 2010 [1] (2007) 6 SCC 42