Judges : P.GOVINDA NAIR,T.KOCHU THOMMEN
CIRCLE INSPECTOR (EXCISE), NEYYATTINKARA - Appellant
Versus
MUKUNDAN - Respondent
Case No : W. A. No. 213 of 1975
Decided On : 07/04/1975
Advocates Appeared :
Government Pleader; For Appellants M. N. Sukumaran Nair; S. A. Nagendran; N. N. D. Pillai; For Respondents
Abkari Act - Interpretation of S.67 - S.34, S.65, S.66, and S.67 - The court discussed the interpretation of S.67 of the Abkari Act, 1077, and its relation to the power to order confiscation of seized property. The court emphasized the need to interpret the sections in light of the broader principles of jurisprudence and the scheme and object of the provisions. It highlighted the absence of safeguards in S.67 compared to other sections and emphasized the need for a limited interpretation of the general words used in S.67. The court also discussed the procedure for confiscation after compounding of offences under S.67 and the possibility of approaching the Magistrate under S.66 for confiscation without conviction. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and their interpretations, influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the interpretation of S.67 of the Abkari Act, 1077, in relation to the power to order confiscation of seized property, specifically a vehicle used for the commission of an offence under the Act. The occupants of the vehicle admitted to the offence falling under S.58 of the Act and expressed willingness to compound the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and directed the release of the seized vehicle, subject to the possibility of approaching the Magistrate under S.66 for confiscation within a specified timeframe. The court emphasized the need for a limited interpretation of S.67 and highlighted the absence of safeguards in the section compared to other provisions.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the interpretation of S.67 of the Abkari Act, particularly in relation to the power to order confiscation of seized property and the procedure for confiscation after compounding of offences under S.67.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to interpret the sections of the Abkari Act in light of the broader principles of jurisprudence and the scheme and object of the provisions. It highlighted the absence of safeguards in S.67 compared to other sections and emphasized the need for a limited interpretation of the general words used in S.67. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and their interpretations, influencing the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the release of the seized vehicle, subject to the possibility of approaching the Magistrate under S.66 for confiscation within a specified timeframe. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
1. This appeal raises an important question regarding, mainly, the interpretation of S.67 of the Abkari Act, 1077. Shortly stated the question is whether the Abkari Act, which specifically empowers the authority concerned to accept a sum of money not exceeding two thousand rupees in lieu of cancellation or suspension of a licence or permit under clauses (a) and (b) of S.26, or accept compensation for the offences under S.55, 56, 57, 58 or 63 also empowers the authority to order confiscation of a thing seized as liable to confiscation which thing did not belong to the licensee, permit holder or the person who committed any of the offences referred to in the section. The learned judge in the judgment under appeal has taken the view that there is no such power.
2. We are dealing with a very old statute and we have to bear in mind that the wordings of the sections of the statute are not free from ambiguity. We have therefore to interpret these sections bearing in mind the broader aspect of the general principles of our jurisprudence. The sections with which we are concerned are S.34 which provides for the seizure of certain articles, S.65 which describes the articles that are liable to confiscation under the Abkari Act, S.66 which postulates proceedings being taken for the purpose of prosecution before a Magistrate which incidentally incorporates certain powers on the Commissioner in relation to confiscation under certain specified circumstances and S.67, the section with which we are primarily concerned in this appeal. We shall extract all these sections one after the other in
toto.
"34. Offenders may be arrested, and contraband liquor and articles seized without warrant. Any officer of the Abkari, Salt, Police, Land Revenue or Customs Departments, and any other person duly empowered may arrest without warrant in any public thoroughfare or open place other than a dwelling house any person found committing an offence punishable under S.15C or S.55 or S.57 or S.58 of this Act and in any such thoroughfare or place may seize and detain any liquor, drug or other article which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act or any other such law, and may search any person, vessel, vehicle, animal, package, receptacle or covering, upon whom or in or upon which he may have reasonable cause to suspect any such liquor, drug or other such article to be, or to be concealed:
Provided that, if the officer or person making the arrest under this section be not empowered under S.5-A to admit to bail, the person arrested shall be forthwith forwarded to an officer so empowered, if there be such an officer within a distance of five miles from the place where such arrest took place.
And it shall be the duty of such officer empowered as aforesaid to admit such person to bail, if sufficient bail be tendered for his appearance before an Abkari officer having jurisdiction to enquire into the case.
65. What things liable to confiscation. - In any case in which an offence has been committed under this Act, the liquor, drug; materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus in respect or by means of which an offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation
Any liquor or intoxicating drug lawfully imported, exported, transported, manufactured, had in possession or sold or toddy lawfully drawn or tapped along with, or in addition to any liquor, intoxicating drug or toddy, liable to confiscation under this section, and the receptacles, packages and coverings in which any such liquor, intoxicating drug, materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus as aforesaid is or are found, and the other contents, if any, of the receptacles or packages in which the same is or are found, and the animals, carts, vessels or other conveyances used in carrying the same, shall likewise be liable to confiscation."
"66. Confiscation how ordered. - When the offender is convicted or when the person charged with an offence under this Act is acqu
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.