1. Petitioner is before this court assailing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur in Criminal Appeal No.94/2010 decided on 19.4.2011 confirming the order passed by the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise confiscating the vehicle in question.

2. Sans details, the facts can be stated as under:

On 18.12.2005 at around 10.30 pm, Ravikumar, CPI, N R Pura Circle lodged a complaint before the PSI at Balehonnur Police Station which was registered in Crime No.125/2005 for the offence punishable under section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short ‘the Act’] read with section 171 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the complaint was that the complainant was on his beat duty in connection with Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat elections and he was coming from N R Pura towards Balehonnur side, on Madaguni C K road, a person had parked Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No.KA 18/M-4412. On suspicion, the complainant checked the said vehicle and found that the person who was in the car and another were illegally distributing arrack packets and when questioned it was found that the two persons did not have permit for selling of arrack. On enquiry, he disclosed his name was M. Manjunatha and another person with him was Narayana, both of Mudugini Village. The CPI seized the vehicle as well as 33 packets of arrack containing 100 ml. Thereafter, both accused were brought to the police station and handed over to the PSI along with contraband articles and the vehicle involved in the offence for taking further action. A case was registered as against the petitioner and one another and the contraband articles and vehicle were produced before the Authorized Officer and the Deputy Commissioner for Excise, Chikmagalur District, Chikmagalur. The Authorized Officer thereafter initiated confiscation proceedings. The petitioner appeared before the Authorized Officer and secured interim custody of the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings. In support of the prosecution, they have examined four witness and six documents were marked as Exhibits.P1 to P6 and the vehicle in question as MO No.1. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. The Authorized Officer was of the view that there was clear violation of the provisions of section 34 of the Act, hence confiscated the vehicle in question and recalled the order of granting interim custody. The correctness and legality of the same was questioned by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has concurred with the finding recorded by the Authorized Officer and has dismissed the appeal.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the interim custody of the vehicle continues to be with the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 33 packets which were seized, only one packet of 100 ml, was sent to the chemical analyst and his opinion was sought to be produced before the Confiscating Officer. Insofar as the remaining 32 packets are concerned, they were not sent for chemical examination. He further submits that the petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 as well as Indian Penal Code and the criminal court has acquitted the petitioner albeit on extending the benefit of doubt.

5. The learned counsel for the State supports the orders passed by the Confiscating Authority as well as the Sessions Court. He submits that notwithstanding the fact that only one sachet was sent for chemical examination, the same discloses that there is violation of the provisions of the Act, hence confiscation is justified.

6. Apparently, the Authorized Officer as well as the learned Sessions Judge have ruled that the petitioner has violated the provisions of sections 40 and 43 of the Act.

7. The prosecution has examined four witnesses in support of his case. Ex.