Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.R.LAKSHAMANAN, G.BIKSHAPATHY, GHULAM MOHAMMED
V.Narayana Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., Prohibition and Excise Dept. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-11-02
A. P. Excise Act, 1968 - Section 64 – Seeks to quash the orders and to grant other consequential reliefs - Mens rea - security or bank guarantee - Petitioner submitted a reply raising objections and opposing confiscation - However, the 3rd respondent, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, ordered confiscation of the lorries by order - Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed the statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 63 of Act - The 2nd respondent also dismissed the appeal by order - As stated earlier, the petitioner preferred a revision purported to be under Section 64 of the Excise Act - Government of Andhra Pradesh in Revenue (Excise III) Department by G. O. for reasons recorded in the said order rejected the same - Since the said order was passed during the pendency of the writ petition we permitted the writ petitioner to file an application for amendment which was ordered by us to- day to include the prayer to quash the proceedings of the Government in G. O – Held In the light of the submissions made in the explanation submitted by the petitioners the authorities ought to have released the stock along with lorries. However, they failed to do so which compelled the petitioner to file appeal before the 2nd respondent and also a revision before the State Government and again the present writ petitions before this court - There is no mens rea to commit the offence on part of the petitioner which is one of the relevant considerations before ordering confiscation and seizure of the vehicle. In the instant case we hold that mens rea is totally absent - Therefore, there cannot be an order of confiscation of the goods or the vehicle - Writ petitions allowed.
( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 5387 of 2000 was filed to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22-2-2000 and arising out of the order dated 17-9-1999 in Rc. No. B3/2234/98 passed by the 3rd respondent and to declare them as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. Originally the writ petition was filed only to quash the impugned orders dated 22-2-2000 and 17-9-1999. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner moved the State government by filing a revision purported to be under Section 64 of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short the Excise Act ). The said revision petition was dismissed by the government, which is also now impugned in this writ petition by way of amendment.
( 2 ) WRIT Petition No. 6493 of 2000 was filed by East India Transport Agency impleading the State of Andhra Pradesh and five others. The writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5387 of 2000 was also impleaded as the 6th respondent as per the court order dated 14-2-2001 in W. P. M. P. No. 3112 of 2001. The said writ petition was filed to quash the order dated 22-2-2000 in so far as it confirms the confiscation of the IML which was seized along with lorries bearing Nos. AP 12t 2921 and AP 16t 1512 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and consequently to direct the respondents to deliver the consignment of Indian made hquor to the petitioner. The goods were ordered to be released by this court on 15-2-2001 on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for rs. 5,00,000/ -.
( 3 ) WE shall now deal with the first Writ Petition No. 5387 of 2000 filed by the owner of the vehicle. According to the petitioner he purchased the lorries by obtaining finance from Sundaram Finance Company Limited. The lorries are under hypothecation to the said finance company. The petitioner is running the lorries on hire basis to various parties including East India Transport agency (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6493 of 2000 ). On 26-10-1998 the petitioner entered into an agreement with Calcutta based transport company known as East india Transport Agency (petitioner in Writ petition No. 6483 of 2000) for transporting indian made liquor manufactured by international Distilleries (India) Limited, from Daman to Assam. The consignment contained about 33257 IML bottles. The lorries were being driven by the petitioner and his father and both of them are licensed to drive heavy-duty vehicles. According to the petitioner the following documents were available for transportation of the consignment viz. : (I) Administration of Daman and Diu, department of Excise permit no. 747/98 and 748/98-99 dated 15-9-1999 valid upto 29-10-1998 for the two lorries. (ii) Government of Assam, Office of the commissioner of Excise, Assam import Permit No. III-74/96-97/ 23818 and 111-74/96-97/23828 dated 31-8-1998 for the two lorries and the permits not transferable and valid for two months from the date of issue. (iii) Khamani Distilleries Private limited invoice No. IMFL/98-99- 606 and IMFL/98-99-604, dated 26-10-1998 for the two lorries. (iv) From TTP No. 00/1555/1750/98 and 001556/1791/98 dated 27-10-1998 Maharashtra State. (v) Receipt Nos. 1295194 and 1295195 dated 31-10-1998 issued by the assistant Commercial Tax Officer, chiragpally check post.
( 4 ) THE consignment was lifted from Daman and it passed through the State of gujarat and Maharashtra. It is further submitted that the route to Assam through madhya Pradesh is being avoided by all the transporters due to delays, security risks and hilly terrain. Therefore, it was decided to transport the consignment through andhra Pradesh and West Bengal. When the lorries reached Andhra Pradesh border from maharashtra the consignment was checked at the Zaheerabad check post by the concerned officials and it was allowed to pass through. As the consignment passed through the check post the petitioners were under the bona fide impression that no further documentation or permission was required for transportation through the State of And
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
