The petitioner is aggrieved by the original, appellate and revisional orders in proceedings for confiscation of a vehicle under the Abkari Act on the finding that vehicle was used for illegally transporting foreign made foreign liquor. The vehicle was seized for unlawful transportation of 88 bottles of foreign made foreign liquor containing 88 litres of liquor. By Ext.P3, the Assistant Excise Commissioner ordered confiscation of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle has been used for unauthorisedly transporting 88 bottles of foreign made for foreign liquor. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by Ext.P4 order and revision also met with the same fate, by Ext.P5.

2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the liquor was not seized from the vehicle which was ordered to be confiscated. The petitioner submits that the seizure of the liquor and vehicle was at the Changanacherry Railway Station. According to the petitioner, the liquor was on the platform of the Railway station when the seizure was effected and the vehicle was only parked nearby. The petitioner contends that to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in the confiscation proceedings, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 reply taking the specific contention that the liquor was not seized from the vehicle and he also requested for summoning the Circle Inspector of Police, Police constables and independent witnesses in the mahazar prepared by the police, for being examined as witnesses in the confiscation proceedings to prove that the liquor was not seized from the vehicle. However, that was not allowed, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, which itself is sufficient to set aside the entire proceedings.

3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also, who supports the impugned orders.

4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

5. Certain facts are not disputed by the petitioner. They are:- (1) 88 bottles of foreign made foreign liquor were being transported from Chennai by the petitioner. (2) The petitioner had no permit to transport or licence to sell the liquor. (3) It was unloaded at the Changanacherry Railway Station. (4) The vehicle, which was directed to be confiscated, belongs to the petitioner and was parked near the contraband goods. According to the petitioner, the liquor was seized before it was boarded on the vehicle and therefore, the vehicle was not liable for confiscation.

6. It is true that in Ext.P2 explanation to the show cause notice issued in the confiscation proceedings, the petitioner took the contention that since the liquor was not seized from the vehicle, the vehicle was not liable to be confiscated and had requested the Assistant Excise Commissioner to summon the Circle Inspector of Police, Police constables and independent witnesses in the mahazar for examination. But from Ext.P3 order of confiscation it does not appear that the petitioner had raised such a contention at the time of hearing. The petitioner would argue that he had raised that contention which was not considered. He also admits that he had not also offered himself as a witnesses first, to discharge the burden cast on him by Section 67C(2) of the Abkari Act. Again from Ext.P4 appellate order also, it is not revealed that the petitioner had raised a contention before the appellate authority to the effect that his request for summoning the police officers as witnesses was not considered by the original authority. The petitioner would assert that in the appeal memorandum the petitioner had raised such a contention. But the appellate authority does not mention about any such contention in Ext.P4. The petitioner has also not cared to produce a copy of the appeal memorandum before me. Of course Ext.P5 order in revision refers to such a contention. I am of opinion that the petitioner should have first offered himself as a witness to prima facie prove such a contention before he can raise non-summoning of the police officers as a