Authorised Officer and Dy. Commissioner of Excise vs Rangappa

A.S. Pachhapure, J—The state has challenged the order of the Presiding Officer in Crl. A. No. 46/2013, dated 21-3-2013 setting aside the order of the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise confiscating the Autorickshaw bearing No. KA-18-A-4378. The facts reveal that the aforesaid Autorickshaw was found to carry liquor on 14-12-2010 and after credible information, it was seized along with whisky bottles. The FSL report was sent to the magistrate. The proceedings were initiated before the Criminal Court, and confiscation proceedings between the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner.

After recording the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 Exs. P.1 to P.6 were marked, whereas D.W.J. was examined on behalf of the respondent. The Authorized Officer has passed an order confiscating the Autorickshaw and the said order was challenged in appeal before the Session Court. The said appeal was allowed and the order confiscating the Autorickshaw was set aside. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Session Judge, the present revision petition is filed by the State.

Heard the Government Pleader for the petitioner-State.

P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the attesting witnesses to prove the seizure. P.Ws. 3 and 4 who are the Excise Officers speak about the seizure and production of seized material. P.W. 3 also speaks to the initiation of confiscation proceeding before the Authorized Officer. But as contemplated under Section 43A of the Karnataka Excise Act, it is necessary that the seized vehicle and also the prohibited goods will have to be produced before the Authorized Officer without any unreasonable delay and it is only on production of said seized property under sub-section (1) of Section 43A that the confiscation proceedings have to continue. Unfortunately, neither P.W. 3 nor P.W. 4 though seized the vehicle and also the prohibited goods, did not comply with the requirements of Section 43A by producing them before the Authorized Officer and therefore, the very initiation of proceeding for confiscation are illegal. This fact was not taken into consideration by the Authorized Officer while passing the order of confiscation, but the learned Session Judge has looked into this aspect and quashed the order of confiscation. Looking into the reasons assigned by the learned Session Judge, I do not find any grounds to admit this revision petition. Therefore, the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.