Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
NAVARU SWAPNA REDDY, W/O N. SRINIVAS REDDY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26180 OF 2018
Decided on : 29-06-2021
Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 – Rule 4 – Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 – Section 14 – Abkari Act – Section 67, 55(a) and 58 – Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 – Rule 9 – Kerala Police Act – Section 118 – Seizure Of Vehicle – Petitioner is registered owner of a Toyota Innova Cresta Car bearing Registration, registered with RTA Ranga Reddy situated in State of Telangana – According to petitioner, vehicle is used exclusively by petitioner and her family members in connection with her flower business. – Petitioner hails from State of Telangana. – Husband of petitioner, along with his friends, had taken vehicle to Kerala during Christmas of 2017. – They came to State of Kerala and when they reached Chalakkayam, Pamba in above vehicle, 3.3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) was recovered from husband of petitioner and five other co-passengers. – Police registered a crime and effected seizure of vehicle with contraband articles and reported same to Magistrate. – A case is registered against husband of petitioner and other co-passengers in Innova Car under Section 55(a) and 58 of Abkari Act, with Rule 9 of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 and Sec.118(e) of Kerala Police Act. – Vehicle was seized by Detecting Officer and produced before second respondent. – Second respondent, after hearing petitioner, passed Exhibit.P7 order, thereby, confiscating vehicle
Finding of the court:
Second respondent confiscated vehicle as per Section 67 B (2) of Kerala Abkari Act – There is no such option given to confiscating authority to give notice to either owner or person from whom seizure is effected – That also strengthens my view that as per Sec.67C of Abkari Act notice to person from whom contraband seized is mandatory along with a notice to registered owner – Rule 4(2)a of above Rules says that cart, vessel or other conveyance liable to be confiscated under Act may be released temporarily by authorised officer to its owner on depositing an amount equivalent to market value of cart, vessel or other conveyance fixed by Mechanical Engineer of Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of and above rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of Public Works Department of State in Treasury Savings Account in favour of Commissioner of Excise – Government Pleader submitted that this exercise is already done, and value of vehicle is already assessed by authorities concerned – Counsel for petitioner submitted that vehicle is idle from 2017 in office of 2nd respondent – Value of vehicle is to be assessed afresh – Considering facts and circumstances of case, according to court, there can be a direction to authorities to revalue vehicle before considering an application, if any, submitted by petitioner to release vehicle as per Rule 4(2)a. –
Result :Writ Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is the registered owner of a Toyota Innova Cresta Car bearing Registration No.TS-07-FE-8889, registered with the RTA Ranga Reddy situated in the State of Telangana. According to the petitioner, the vehicle is used exclusively by the petitioner and her family members in connection with her flower business. The petitioner hails from the State of Telangana. The husband of the petitioner, along with his friends, had taken the vehicle to Kerala during the Christmas of 2017. They came to the State of Kerala and when they reached Chalakkayam, Pamba in the above vehicle, 3.3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) was recovered from the husband of the petitioner and five other co-passengers. The Police registered a crime and effected seizure of the vehicle with the contraband articles and reported the same to the Magistrate. A case is registered against the husband of the petitioner and the other co-passengers in the Innova Car under Section 55(a) and 58 of the Abkari Act, with Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 and Sec.118(e) of the Kerala Police Act. The vehicle was seized by the Detecting Officer and produced before the second respondent. The second respondent, after hearing the petitioner, passed Exhibit.P7 order, thereby, confiscating the vehicle. The relevant portion of Ext.P7 order reads as follows:
“I have gone through the case records and the circumstances of the crime carefully. The Innova Cresta Car TS 07 FE 8889 was seized by the Police Party for illegal transportation of 3.3 litres of IMFL from a prohibited and protected area on which it marked as for sale in Telangana only and also a pistol with 11 catridges. The seized liquor is permitted to sale only in the state of Telangana. The manufacture Transport and marketing of liquor in the state of Kerala is under the monopoly of State Government. No liquor from other state can be transported or used in the state of Kerala without remitting Excise Duty. In this respect no duty has been received by the state exchequer and the seized liquor should be treated as substitute beverages and hence attract section 58 of Abkari Act.
More over the main offence committed by accused is that the liquor was seized from the prohibited area surrounding holy Sabarimala vide GO(P) NO. 130/2017 TD and also declared as highly protected area as per GO(P) No.133/2017 Home SRO.NO 655/2017 by Government of Kerala. On which the Government agencies have made vide propaganda in all south Indian languages and in English. The seizure of liquor in the prohibited area attracts Section 55 of Abkari Act. It is very clear and evident that the vehicle was used for the illegal transportation of Liquor through the prohibited area.
All the legal formalities u/s 67B of Abkari Act has been followed for confiscating the vehicle. The petitioner was also heard personally on 31/03/2018 in compliance of the Orders of Honourable High Court of Kerala dated 20/03/2018 in W.P. (C).No.8377/2018. The petitioner has heard personally, but the petitioner failed to produce any credible documents to defend her contention. All the illegal activities are done with the connivance of the 4th accused who is the husband of the registered owner. The registered owner of the vehicle is the wife of the 4th accused which is to be taken in to consideration for taking a decision in this issue. He himself brought the vehicle and came to Kerala as a pilgrim to Sabarimala with his friends and he very well knew about the offence and its consequence committed by him. It is evident that the 4th accused purposefully committed the offence. The husband of the registered owner of the vehicle, here the agent, who is also in charge of the vehicle had knowingly and with full connivance committed the offence and the registered owned had not taken any reasonable precautions against such use. Hence the benefit of Section 67 C (2) of Abkari Act cannot be given to the registered owner. Hence it is convinced that the vehicle is use
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
