9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusion 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 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enuously contended that the driver is a freelancer hired by the petitioner for the specific purpose. In elaboration, he has submitted that though admittedly the driver is from Karnataka, the Excise official, at the time of registering the crime, recorded his statement in Malayalam, a language unknown to him. The learned counsel has also brought to my notice the fact that the five inmates of the car have not been made accused, nor have they been made to give statements concerning the alleged offence. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in thecourse of time the driver has earned an acquittal. 7. The learned counsel has eventually contended that the petitioner has no knowledge of the alleged crime and that he is entitled to the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 11. Without much cavil, I am inclined to hold that the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. In other words, the power of confiscation can be exercised only if the authorised officer is satisfied that the vehicle has been used for commission of offence with the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or the person in charge of the vehicle or that the owner or the person in charge of the vehicle had not taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. An order of confiscation of avehicle cannot, therefore, be made automatically for the reason that an offence has been committed making use of that vehicle. True, the burden to establish that the vehicle had not been used for commission of the offence with the knowledge or connivance of the owner or the pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
