2016 (5) TMI 433 - HC - Indian Laws

Confiscation of motor vehicle u/s 67B of the Abkari Act - Petitioner s vehicle being used by another person as an escort vehicle for another vehicle carrying certain contraband - Petitioner contended that his vehicle has not been used for committing any offence per se and he had no knowledge of or complicity in the alleged crime - Held that - essentially going by the ratio of Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Paulson, which is a decision rendered by a learned Division Bench, I am of the view that Exts.P3 & P4 orders cannot be sustained. Further, since the petitioner s vehicle has not actually been used for committing the alleged offence, it may not assume any significance whether the petitioner has discharged his burden under Section 67(C) of the Act as regards his alleged knowledge of or complicity in the crime. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P5 orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to refund forthwith to the petitioner the amount deposited by him at the time of his securing the interim custody of the vehicle. -Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to confiscation order under Abkari Act - Owner's liability for vehicle used in contraband-related offense - Burden of proof under Section 67C

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the confiscation order of his vehicle under the Abkari Act, contending that he was not involved in the offense for which his vehicle was used as an escort. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to argue that he should benefit from Section 67C(2) of the Act due to his lack of knowledge or complicity in the crime.

2. The Government Pleader opposed the petitioner's claims, asserting that there was evidence linking the petitioner's vehicle to the offense. It was argued that the petitioner failed to produce the alleged agreement between him and the person using the vehicle at the initial stage, which raised doubts about the authenticity of the agreement produced later.

3. The court noted that while the petitioner's vehicle was not directly involved in carrying contraband, it was used as an escort. The absence of the agreement at the initial stage led the adjudicatory authority to draw adverse inferences against the petitioner's innocence, as per the provisions of the Act.

4. Referring to previous cases, the court highlighted the principle that a vehicle used as an escort in a contraband-related offense is considered part of the transaction and subject to confiscation under the Act. The court emphasized the control the owner had over the vehicle and its role in facilitating the transportation of contraband.

5. Considering conflicting judicial opinions, the court ultimately followed a Division Bench decision, holding that the confiscation orders could not be sustained as the petitioner's vehicle was not directly involved in the offense. The court quashed the orders and directed the authorities to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner for the interim custody of the vehicle.

6. The judgment clarified the application of Section 67C, the significance of producing evidence at the initial stage, and the interpretation of using a vehicle as an escort in contraband-related activities. The decision emphasized the need for owners to exercise control over their vehicles and the consequences of failing to prove innocence under the Act.