Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
NAVARU SWAPNA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/26180/2018
Confiscation - Vehicle Seizure - Kerala Abkari Act - Sec. 55, 58, 67B, 67C - The Court found that the confiscation of the vehicle violated the mandatory provisions of providing notice to the owner and the person from whom property was seized, thus setting aside the confiscation orders.
Fact of the Case:
The registered owner of a vehicle is aggrieved by the confiscation of her vehicle due to the seizure of contraband liquor from her husband and others while traveling in the vehicle in a prohibited area in Kerala.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the confiscation authority failed to provide necessary notice to the respondent as required by Section 67C of the Abkari Act, which is mandatory before confiscation.
Issues: Whether the confiscation of the vehicle was valid given the lack of notice provided to the owner and the person from whom the contraband was seized as required by the Abkari Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the confiscation authority must adhere strictly to statutory requirements, including issuing notice to all concerned parties, and that failure to do so rendered the confiscation order illegal.
Final Decision: The orders of confiscation were set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration after issuing proper notices.
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 Telungana only and also a pistol with 11 catridges. The seized liquor is permitted to sale only in the state of Telungana. 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 67 B 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
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
