Point of Law: Provisions in Section 67B of the Act operate independent of Section 67C, it is not to be taken that when an owner does not invoke the provision in Section 67C, there should be confiscation under Section 67B.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No.26180 of 2018. Appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner belongs to the State of Telangana. She owns a Toyota Innova Crysta car bearing registration No.TS-07-FE-8889. On 23.12.2017, while the husband of the petitioner and a few of his friends were travelling in the said vehicle, it was intercepted and seized by the Police at Chalakkayam alleging that they were found carrying 3.3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor intended for sale in the State of Telangana, flouting the order issued by the Government in exercise of the power under Section 9 of the Abkari Act (the Act) prohibiting transportation of liquor to the limits of the Chalakkayam Excise Range, within which they were found. A crime was also registered simultaneously against the husband of the petitioner and others under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (the Rules) and also Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act. The police officer who seized and detained the vehicle of the petitioner later produced the same before the second respondent, the authorised officer, in terms of Section 67B(2) of the Act. The second respondent, thereupon, after issuing notice to the petitioner, ordered confiscation of the vehicle under the said provision as per Ext.P7 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 order in appeal, and in terms of Ext.P9 order, the third respondent affirmed Ext.P7 order. The writ petition was one instituted challenging Exts.P7 and P9 orders. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition was that the allegations do not make out any of the offences alleged against the husband of the petitioner and others; that the allegations, at any rate, do not indicate that any offence has been committed in respect of or by means of the vehicle and that at any rate, the competent authority ought not have exercised the discretion to order confiscation of the vehicle having regard to the nature of the allegations.

3. The learned Single Judge took the view that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 67C(1) of the Act, it was obligatory for the authorised officer before ordering confiscation of the vehicle to issue notice to the person from whom the same was seized, and insofar as the said requirement has not been complied with, the matter needs to be considered afresh. Accordingly, the learned single judge set aside Exts.P7 and P9 orders and directed the authorised officer to consider the matter afresh after issuing notice to the husband of the petitioner as well. The respondents are aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge and hence, this writ appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned Government Pleader argued that the view of the learned Single Judge that it is obligatory on the part of the authorised officer to issue notice to the person from whom the property sought to be confiscated has been seized, before ordering confiscation, is unsustainable. According to the learned Government Pleader, the expression “the person from whom the same is seized” contained in Section 67C(1) of the Act would include the owner of the property as well and the Act does not contemplate notice to be given to the person from whom the property is seized if he is not the owner of the property. It was also argued by the learned Government Pleader that insofar as notice of the proceedings was given to the petitioner who is the owner of the property, the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that there was non-compliance of the requirement in Section 67C(1) of the Act. It was also argued by the learned Government Pleader that at any rate, insofar as the petitioner had no case in the confiscation proceedings that notice