This revision petition is filed by the State challenging the Order dated 31.01.2012, passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.138/2010, whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein and set aside the Order dated 13.08.2010, passed by the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, D.K., Mangaluru, in proceedings No.SDK/151/DTCR/2006-07.

2. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer was set aside and the release of the Ambassador car bearing reg. No.KA-19/A-987 to the interim custody of the respondent herein by virtue of an interim order, was made absolute.

3. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.11.2006 at about 5.30 a.m., the then Sub-Inspector of Excise, Mangaluru Sub-Division, while patrolling on Surathkal- Mangaluru Highway along with his staff, received a credible information that illicit liquor is being transported in some vehicles. Having received the said information and having noticed the Ambassador car bearing reg. No.KA-19/A-987, he and his staff attempted to stop the said vehicle, which was coming from Surathkal towards Nantoor and the driver of the said car did not stop the vehicle. Hence, he and his staff chased the said car and stopped it near Karnataka Polytechnic, Kadri Hills, Mangaluru. The driver of the said car was apprehended and the car was checked. They found that the inmates of the car were in possession of 240 bottles each containing 750 ml. of liquor, which they were carrying without any valid permit. The liquor bottles as well as the Ambassador car were seized in the presence of panchas under a mahazar. It is the further case of the prosecution that 5 bottles of liquor each containing 750 ml. of liquor were taken for the purpose of chemical examination.

5. Proceedings were initiated under Section 43-E of the Karnataka Excise Act [‘’Act’ for brevity] and during the pendency of the said proceedings, interim custody of the vehicle was given to the respondent herein, who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle in question, on furnishing the bank guarantee as required under law.

6. The Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise on completion of the confiscation proceedings found that the vehicle in question was transporting the liquor without any valid permit, which is in violation of Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 as well as Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 [‘Rules’ for brevity]. Accordingly, confiscated the Ambassador car bearing reg. No.KA-19/A- 987.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, D.K., Mangaluru, the respondent herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.138/2010 before the learned Sessions Judge.

8. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the said appeal, set aside the impugned order of confiscating the vehicle and made absolute the order granting interim custody of the vehicle, which was given to the respondent herein.

9. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners assailing the impugned order would contend that the vehicle in question was transporting illicit liquor and under a mahazar 12 cardboard boxes each containing 750 ml. liquor in all 240 bottles were seized. The inmates of the car were transporting the liquor bottles without any valid licence or permit and hence, they have violated Section 34 of the Act and therefore, the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was not proper in holding that the inmates of the car were in possession of less than 4.6 ltrs. of liquor and therefore, Rule 21 of the Rules is not violated. He f