L. Prasada Rao v. The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Andhra Pradesh Excise Act s. 34(a)
- Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 s. 8(b)
- Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act s. 13
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. It is stated that the accused were released on bail. Insofar as confiscation proceedings are concerned it is stated that a show cause notice has been issued to submit an explanation as to why the vehicle shall not be confiscated but the petitioner failed…
- Para 66. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner that he was not present at the time of seizure and that he had no knowledge about the transportation of the said ID…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to proceedings Cr.No.2147/DPE/98/B2 dt: 20-10-98 passed by the 1st Respondent dismissing the Appeal as well as proceedings No.405/97/B2 dt: 13-12-97 passed by the 2nd Respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure established under law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.SRINIVASULA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner is the owner of a car bearing vehicle No. AP 35A 2257 and the said vehicle was seized on 06.04.1997 while it was found transporting 10 ID Liquor sachets each sachet containing 100 ML ID Liquor in a polythin bag and 4 pint bottles Gilbey Green Label Rich Blend Whisky each containing 375 ML. Based on the same a case in Cr.No.456 & 457/96-97 was registered under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Section 8(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Salur Prohibition and Excise Station.
According to the petitioner he was not involved in the offence and he was not at all present at the time of the seizure but he was implicated illegally in the aforesaid crime though he had no knowledge about the seizure of the ID liquor. Thus, it is stated that the confiscation proceedings passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise by order dated 13.12.1997 in D.Dis. No.405/97/B2 as confirmed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in Cr.No.2147/DPE/98/B2 dated 20.10.1998 are illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, he is entitled for release of the said vehicle, as the said vehicle cannot be confiscated, as he has no knowledge about the involvement of the said vehicle.
A perusal of the records go to show that the on 06.04.1997 at about 11.30 PM during the route watch conducted by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Salur with Prohibition Sub-Inspectors and staff at Viswanadhapuram village road junction detected a car bearing No. AP 35A 2257 found transporting 10 ID Liquor sachets each sachet containing 100 ML ID Liquor in a polythin bag and 4 pint bottles Gilbey Green Label Rich Blend Whisky each containing 375 ML and two persons viz., L. Prasada Rao S/o. Satyam Naidu – petitioner herein - A1 and Meesala Venkata Rami Naidu – A2, S/o. Late Rama Rao, R/o. Voddiveedhi of Salur Village, who was driving the car. Therefore, the contraband was seized under the cover of panchanama by registering a case in Cr.No.456 & 457 /96-97 was registered under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Section 8(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Salur Prohibition and Excise Station and submitted confiscation proceedings under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise.
It is stated that the accused were released on bail. Insofar as confiscation proceedings are concerned it is stated that a show cause notice has been issued to submit an explanation as to why the vehicle shall not be confiscated but the petitioner failed to submit any explanation. Accordingly, the vehicle was confiscated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who after perusing the records and after hearing, confirmed the order on the ground that the petitioner did not submit explanation to the show cause notice and as per the records he was present in the vehicle at the time of seizure and he was arrested. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had no knowledge and he was not present.
The criminal proceedings are different from the departmental proceedings. Whenever a vehicle is involved in the excise offence, the accused are liable to be punished and the vehicle is liable be confiscated. Therefore, two actions arise under the same cause of action one for confiscation and one for criminal proceedings. Insofar as departmental proceedings are concerned, the petitioner was not able to establish his absence on the date of hearing but the records go to show that he was present at the time of seizure and he was arrested, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no knowledge about the seizure.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner that he was not present at the time of seizure and that he had no knowledge about the transportation of the said ID liquor. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. May 2, 2008 DSK ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J