1. A mini lorry driven by the petitioner, was intercepted and seized by an excise party on 16-11-2004, for illegal transport of 570 litres of spirit. The petitioner was arrested. Another escaped from the spot. A motor cycle, escorting that vehicle, was also seized. That motor cycle, admittedly, belongs to the petitioner, who is the first accused in the criminal case.

.2. The registration particulars available in the mini lorry with Tamil Nadu registration, turned out to be fake. None raised any claim for that mini lorry, nor objected to confiscation of that vehicle even in

.spite of public advertisement.

3. Following the detailed investigation conducted by the Excise Inspector about the involvement of both the vehicles in the offence and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, an order was passed confiscating both the vehicles to Government, in exercise of authority under Section 67B(2) of the Abkari Act 1 of 1077, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. Pending such proceedings, the motor cycle was temporarily released to the petitioner, the registered owner, on deposit of its duly fixed market value.

4. Petitioner appealed against the confiscation order, as regards the motor cycle. The appellate authority noted that, as per the case records, the motor cycle was escorting the mini lorry carrying the spirit and its rider escaped into forest under the cover of darkness, on seeing the excise party. The writ petitioner was the driver of the mini lorry. He was arrested at the site of interception. He is the owner of the Motor Cycle. Accordingly, the appellate authority clearly concluded, on facts, that the motor cycle was escorting the mini lorry driven by the writ petitioner and that the spirit was transported in the mini lorry driven by the writ petitioner at the material point of time, with the active support of the motor cycle as an escorting vehicle. Accordingly, the confiscation order was confirmed.

5. As already noted, the findings of facts rendered by the statutory authorities in the impugned orders are that (i) the mini lorry was carrying spirit unauthorisedly; (ii) that lorry was driven by the writ petitioner; (iii) the motor cycle driven by another person who escaped into the forest under the cover of darkness on seeing the excise party, was escorting the mini lorry carrying the contraband; (iv) the petitioner who was driving the lorry is admittedly the registered owner of the motor cycle which was found to be escorting the mini lorry; (v) the mini lorry had fake registration numbers and none had claimed it, nor objected to its confiscation. I may also notice that the identity of the person, who was riding the motor cycle, has not been disclosed even by the petitioner who is the owner of the motor cycle and is opposing its confiscation.

6. The argument on behalf of the writ petitioner is that section 67B(2) of the Act does not provide for confiscation of any vehicle other than that which contained the contraband. In support of that contention, reference was made to sub-section (1) of section 67B and section 65 of the Act, with the support of the judgment of this Court in V.P. Paulson v. The Asst. Excise Commissioner (2006 (3) KLJ 742).

7. After referring to Asst. Excise Commissioner V. Vijayan (1981 KLT 366) and Sajin v. District Superintendent of Police (1999 (2) KLT 490), the words “used in carrying the same” following the words “…..animals, carts, vessels and other conveyances” in the second part of section 65 were interpreted in V.P. Paulson (supra) and it was laid down that animals, carts or other conveyances etc. can be confiscated under the Act only if the same were actually used for carrying the contraband, and not merely if by means of the same, an abkari offence has been committed. In V.P. Paulson (supra), the case considered was one where contraband was seized while a lorry was being loaded with liquor. One person was arrested on the spot. Four others, who were allegedly loading the liqu