2016 (12) TMI 306 - HC - Indian Laws

Confiscation of a seized car - involvement in a case under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act - Held that - if the owner of the vehicle is unable to establish that the person in charge of the vehicle had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against use of the vehicle for commission of any offence, the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, even if the same had been used for commission of the offence without his knowledge. In the instant case, going by the admitted case, the offence is alleged to have been committed by the person in charge of the vehicle. When the person in charge of the vehicle himself is an accused, the petitioner cannot avoid an order of confiscation on the ground that the offence has been committed without his knowledge. There is yet another reason also for me to come to the said conclusion. Exts.P1 and P3 orders indicate that Biju, to whom the vehicle has been entrusted, was an accused in a similar case earlier also, where the allegation is that he possessed 3570 litres of spirit. The petitioner has no case that his wife was not aware of the involvement of his brother in a similar case at the time when the vehicle was entrusted to him. As such, even if it is assumed that the wife of the petitioner was the person in charge of the vehicle, it cannot be said that she had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against use of the vehicle for commission of offences under the Act while entrusting the vehicle to the brother of the petitioner. Exts.P1 and P3 orders, in the circumstances, are in order. The writ petition is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Decided against petitioner-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to confiscation of vehicle under Section 67B of the Abkari Act based on lack of involvement in alleged offense.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an Indian Army personnel, challenged the confiscation of his vehicle under Section 67B of the Abkari Act. The vehicle was seized from his brother, accused of an offense under Section 55(a) of the Act. The petitioner asserted no connection to the case, contending the vehicle should not have been confiscated. Despite challenging the initial order in appeal, it was confirmed, leading to this writ petition challenging both orders.

The petitioner's wife explained that the vehicle was given to the brother to take a child to the hospital, but there was no mention of its use in the offense. The petitioner argued that the confiscation was unjust as he had no knowledge or involvement in the offense. However, Section 67C(2) of the Act states that a vehicle can be confiscated if used in an offense, even without the owner's knowledge, unless all reasonable precautions were taken against such use. In this case, since the offense was allegedly committed by the person in charge of the vehicle, confiscation is warranted.

Moreover, the brother had a prior case involving a large quantity of spirit, suggesting awareness of his criminal activities. Even if the wife entrusted the vehicle, it was not proven that necessary precautions were taken to prevent its use in offenses. Therefore, the court upheld the confiscation orders, dismissing the writ petition for lack of merit.