Back
N. NAGARESH
Baby, S/o. Antony – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Govt. Secretariat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 notice-cum-order dated 23.05.2023 and Ext.P3 notice-cum-order dated 06.02.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent-Deputy Excise Commissioner. The petitioner states that he was an accused in Crime No.350/2021 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range. The petitioner was accused of offences punishable under Sections 10 and 13 read with 63 of the Abkari Act, 1077. It was alleged that the petitioner transported 12 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in his Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.KL-01H-1277 on 04.12.2021.
2. When IMFL was seized, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 show-cause notice dated 09.12.2021. The vehicle was later released to the petitioner granting interim custody on deposit of Rs.70,000/- being the market value then fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Motor Vehicles Department. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice informing that his application for release of the vehicle permanently to him was rejected by the 2nd respondent-Excise Commissioner. The petitioner was required to produce the vehicle before the 3rd respondent to complete confiscation proceedings.
3. The petitioner was se
The discretion of authorized officers in offering the option of paying a fine in lieu of confiscation and the absence of an absolute right for the owner of the confiscated vehicle to exercise this op....
Point of law : Sec.67(C) of the Abkari Act says that no order confiscating any property shall be made under Sec.67B unless the person from whom the same is seized, is given a notice in writing inform....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'used for committing an offence' under the Abkari Act has a wide meaning and that there must be prima facie evidence to show that the....
The outcome of the criminal case has no bearing on the confiscation proceedings under the Abkari Act, and the authorized officer may order confiscation of a vehicle involved in an Abkari offence, irr....
The court can allow the release of a seized vehicle on conditions despite ongoing confiscation proceedings if initial proceedings were not timely initiated.
Confiscation of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act requires direct involvement of the owner in the offense; without such involvement, confiscation orders are deemed arbitrary and un....
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 Sect....
The court emphasized the necessity of providing sufficient reasoning for denying interim release of seized property under relevant statutes.
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
