CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 02 KL CK 0071

M.U. Shanavas vs State of Kerala, The Additional Commissioner of Excise and The Deputy Excise Commissioner

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 February 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Antony Dominic, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) . No. 5114 of 2010 (L)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 342 words

Antony Dominic, J.—The petitioner is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. KL-10 AB 6760.

2.

On 11/04/2009, the Assistant Excise Inspector and party stopped the vehicle and on search, recovered 16.5 litres of IMFL from the vehicle owned and driven by the petitioner along with a passenger. Thereupon proceedings were initiated u/s 67 of the Abkari Act for confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioner was issued notice and was heard and Ex.P2 order was passed by the 3rd respondent confiscating the vehicle. Against Ext.P2, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. Appeal was considered and rejected by Ext.P3 order.

3.

During the pendency of the proceedings, it would appear that the vehicle was temporarily released to the petitioner on Bank Guarantee. In view of Exts.P2 & P3, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilamboor, before whom the criminal case is pending, has by Ext.P4 required the petitioner to produce the vehicle. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P2, P3 & P4.

A reading of Exts.P2 & P3 show the fact that the vehicle was owned and driven by the petitioner when recovery of IMFL was admittedly effected. This certainly makes out a case for confiscation. Then the only question is whether the petitioner could have been given the benefit of Section 67C(2) of the Abkari Act. Apart from stating that the petitioner was unaware of the presence of liquor in his vehicle, the petitioner did not prove this contention by adducing any evidence. It is the settled position that burden of proof to be discharged u/s 67C of the Act is on the person who claims the benefit of the Section. In this case, the petitioner did not discharge his burden in any manner. In such a situation, I cannot find fault with Ext.P2 order of the 3rd respondent or Ext.P3 appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent. Necessarily therefore, these orders and also Ext.P4 will have to be sustained and I do so.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.