SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(AP) 1110

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
K. Veeraprasad Rao – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Prohibition – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M.Damodar Reddy
Counsel for Respondents: Govt. Pleader for Excise

ORDER

1. Questioning the order of confiscation of the tractor and trailer belonging to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent in an appeal preferred by them, petitioners filed this writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioners is that inasmuch as no contraband was seized from the tractor and trailer they are not liable for confiscation under the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act (the Act).

3. The case of the respondents is that on reliable information that an illegal toddy depot where toddy mixed with chloral hydrate was being sold, they went to that place and found toddy being sold in a hut and a tractor and trailer in front of that hut without any attendant there and so they seized all the bottles, tubs etc., found in the hut and tractor and trailer also as it was used for carrying the illicit toddy and issued notice to the owners of the tractor and trailer to show cause why the tractor and trailer cannot be confiscated and having considered their explanation, which is not satisfactory, they confiscated the tractor and trailer of the petitioners.

4. On my directions the learned Government Pleader produced the relevant file, which contain










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top