The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision for confiscation under the Abkari Act is permissive and not obligatory, and the authorized officer must be satisfied that an offense has been committed and that the property is liable to confiscation. The court also emphasized the procedural requirements for confiscation and the burden of proof on the owner to prevent confiscation.

1. The petitioner is the owner of a 1976 Model Bajaj Tempo Diesel Driven Van, KLC-7977, costing (according to him) about Rs. 66,000/-. On the ground that it was used for carrying 2250 m. litres of illicit arrack, the 4th respondent as per his Ext. P2 order of 121977 confiscated it under S.67B (2) of the Abkari Act, 1077. The 3rd respondent as per Ext P3 order dismissed the appeal against Ext. P2 order. The 2nd respondent, likewise, as per Ext P4 order dismissed the revision against the confiscation. The confiscation of the van as aforesaid is challenged here.

2. The van used to carry passengers on hire from Payyannur Railway Station to Payyannur town. On 30 81976, the Excise Inspector, Payyannur and party stopped it in front of the Central U.P. School, Payyannur and inspected it. At that time besides its driver there was also a passenger by name Kunhikannan in it While it is the case of the respondents that the Excise Inspector on inspection found the illicit arrack in sealed bottles kept covered in a bed sheet in the tool box of the van. the petitioner with reference to the recorded statements of the passenger and the driver, and also the passenger application for permission to compound the offence for Rs 300/-contends that the same was seized from the passenger. On 3 91976 Kunhikannan submitted an application praying for clemency and his statement was recorded then. In this application and this statement he said that the seized arrack was with him and that neither the petitioner nor the driver had any information or knowledge about it. The driver, in his statement, also recorded on '3-9-1976, denied any knowledge about the arrack in the van On 28-10-1976 Kunhikannan sought for sanction to compound the offence for Rs. 300/- and the 4th respondent accepting the recommendation of the Excise Inspector in that behalf by order dated 8-11-1976 accorded sanction for the same

3. S.67B(2) and 67C(i) of the Act reads:

"67B(2) Where an authorised officer seizes and detains any property specified in sub-section (i) or where any such property is produced before an authorised officer under that sub-section and he is satisfied that an offence under this Act has been committed in respect of or by means of that property and that such property is liable to confiscation under this Act, such authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of such property and where such property consists of any receptacle or package, the authorised officer may also order confiscation of all contents thereof."

"67C(i) No order confiscating any property shall be made under S.67B unless the person from whom the same is seized

(a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property;

(b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter."

4. In order that he may order confiscation of any property specified is S.67B(1) - on I y a property so specified is liable to confiscation by an abkari officer the authorised officer has to be satisfied of two matters: (i) that an offence under the Act has been committed in respect of or by means of that property; and (ii) such property, that is, the property in respect of or by means of which an offence under the Act has been committed, is liable to confiscation under the Act. In other words, from being satisfied of the first requirement, it does not follow that he can order confiscation, without being further satisfied, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property in question is liable to confiscation Mark, S 67B (2) is only permissive and not obligatory. Relying on State of M. P v. Azad Bharat Finance Co (AIR. 1967 SC. 276) and Commercial Credit Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1975 KL