2015 (12) TMI 1035 - HC - Indian Laws

Commission of offence under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act - Seizure of vehicle - Held that - petitioner has failed to discharge his burden and that a bare statement that he had no knowledge of or complicity in the alleged crime is not sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 67C (2) of the Act. - burden cast on the owner of the vehicle under Section 67C(2) of the Act is a positive one. As has been rightly observed by the appellate authority, a mere passive denial is not sufficient. But the totality of the circumstances give rise to, in my opinion, an unmistakable conclusion that the petitioner, the owner of a private vehicle, belongs to a different State; by no imagination can he be said to be deliberately indulging in transporting liquor of meagre quantity from Karanataka to Kerala through his driver or otherwise. - driver, at the behest of the travelers or otherwise, purchased liquor meant, apparently, for personal consumption. Accepting the said sequence of events which are quite probable, it is hard to believe that the petitioner has any knowledge of, much less any complexity in, the offence alleged to have been committed by his driver. - petitioner has, in fact, discharged his burden under Section 67C(2) of the Act and thus deserved release of the vehicle in his favour. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of a vehicle under Section 67C of the Kerala Abkari Act.
2. Burden of proof on the owner regarding knowledge of alleged crime.
3. Application of Section 67C(2) of the Act in the case.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure and subsequent confiscation of a vehicle under Section 67C of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner, a resident of Karnataka, lent his car to friends who were intercepted by Excise officials with liquor bottles in Kerala. The driver was arrested, but later acquitted. The vehicle was seized and ultimately confiscated by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, leading to the petitioner's appeal against the decision.

2. The primary issue revolved around the burden of proof on the owner regarding knowledge of the alleged crime. The petitioner contended that he had no knowledge of the offense and should benefit under Section 67C of the Act. The government pleader argued that a mere denial was insufficient to discharge the burden under the provision, citing the orders passed by the authorities as justification.

3. The judgment delved into the application of Section 67C(2) of the Act, emphasizing the positive burden on the owner to prove lack of knowledge or complicity in the offense. The court highlighted the necessity for cogent evidence from the owner to fulfill this obligation. Reference was made to a previous case to underscore the importance of satisfying that the vehicle was used for the offense with the owner's knowledge or connivance.

4. Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner had indeed discharged his burden under Section 67C(2) of the Act. The judge reasoned that the circumstances indicated the petitioner's lack of involvement or knowledge in the offense committed by the driver. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the confiscation order, and directed the authorities to release the bank guarantee to the petitioner, who had already been in possession of the vehicle. No costs were awarded in the case.