The owner of a vehicle used in the commission of an offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 is liable for confiscation of the vehicle, even if the owner is acquitted, unless the owner satisfies the court that he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of the offence.

Both these revisions arise out of the same case and are hence disposed of together. Crl. R.C. 232/87 is by A. 1 in CC. 10291/82 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras challenging his conviction for an offence under S. 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 2, 000/- imposed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal. Crl. R.C. 343/87 is by A. 3 in the same case and in directed against the order of confiscation of his lorry TMQ 1519 used for the commission of the above offence, the order being confirmed in appeal.

2. Both the petitioners along with A. 2 were tried for the above offence on the allegation that they entered into a conspiracy, between 24-11-1981 and 25-11-1981, to illicitly transport liquor, in violation of the above Act, in TMQ 1519 from Annanagar, Madras to Avadi and pursuant to the conspiracy on 25-11-1981 at 4.00 p.m. A.1 and A.2 were found transporting 5312 bottles of brandy and rum in the junction of Shanthi Colony, 3rd Avenue, Annanagar.

3. The prosecution case is briefly as follows : P.W. 2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Annanagar while patrolling the area, saw a lorry bearing registration No. TMQ 1519 coming between the 3rd Avenue and 6th Avenue is Annanagar. On suspicion, he gave signal to the lorry to stop. Ignoring the signal the lorry speed fast. P.W. 2 chased the lorry in a police van. At the junction of Shanthi Colony, the vehicle was stopped and the Driver A. 2 and the Cleaner A.1 ran away. P.W. 2 and his party chased them and caught hold of A. 1. A. 2 escaped. The lorry was searched in the presence of A. 1, P.W. 1 a retired Major and others and it was found that the lorry contained 5312 bottles of Brandy and Rum of different varieties. The lorry M.O. 1, the tarpaulin M.O. 2, the rope M.O. 3 and the bottles of contraband M.O. 4 series were seized by P.W. 2 under mahazar Ex. P.1, attested by P.W. 1 and others. P.W. 2 made a special report Ex. P.2 to P.W. 3 the Inspector of Police, Annanagar, who registered it as Crime No. 4632/91 for an offence under S. 4(1)(a) of the Act. A.1 was examined and thereafter A.2 and A.3 were made accused. M.O. 4 series were sent for chemical examination and P.W. 4, the Scientific Assistant attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madras examined them and offered opinion in Ex. P.5 to P.16 that they were either rum or brandy. Further investigation was taken up by P.W. 7 who after completing it filed charge sheet against all the 3 accused for the above offences.

4. The trial court convicted A. 1 as mentioned above and acquitted A. 2 on the question of disputed identity. It also acquitted A. 3 on the ground that A. 3 had not been present in the vehicle at the time of interception and seizure and besides being the owner of M.O. 1, there was nothing to show his complicity with the crime.

5. Thiru P. M. Sundaram, learned counsel while dealing with the conviction of A. 1, would submit that he was not challenging, either the conviction or the sentence imposed on A. 1 and that A. 1 would be entitled to the benefit of two remission Government Orders passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under S. 432, Cr.P.C. and the entire sentence of imprisonment for the period of 1 year, would stand remitted under the above said Government Orders and an observation to that effect in this judgment would suffice. Since the conviction and sentence of A. 1 are not challenged, they are confirmed. A.1 will be entitled to remission of the full sentence of imprisonment of 1 year under G.O. Ms. No. 180, Home (Prison-IV) Department, dated 28-1-1989 and G.O. Ms. No. 781 Home (P.R.C.) Department dated 11-4-1989. Each of these Government Orders had been issued on different occasions and each gives a remission of six months imprisonment to convicted persons. The petitioner in Crl. RC. 232/87 (A. 1) is entitled to the benefit of both Government Orders. His sentence of imprisonment stands remitted under the