P.V.Eldhose vs The Excise Inspector on 17 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19304 of 2008(W)


1. P.V.ELDHOSE, AGED, S/O.VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

3. THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :17/11/2009

 O R D E R
        THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

          W.P.(C).No.19304 of 2008-W

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

   Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009.

                   JUDGMENT

A Tata EX Mini Lorry belonging to the petitioner

was apprehended at 06.05 hours on 25.10.2005 by

the Excise Inspector in the Excise Check Post,

Manjeswaram. The vehicle was found to be carrying

39 litres of IMFL (each having capacity of 750

ml). The driver and the cleaner of the vehicle

were arrested. The vehicle was produced before

the authorised officer. Confiscation was ordered

under Section 67B of the Abkari Act. The

petitioner carried an appeal against it. He was

heard through counsel. The stand taken was that

the petitioner did not have any connection with

the commission of the offence and that he had no

knowledge and had not connived in the conduct

attributed to the driver and cleaner. The

petitioner’s appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P4

WPC19304/07 -: 2 :-

by the Additional Excise Commissioner. That

officer did not find any legal infirmity or

factual error in the confiscation order. The

quantity of IMFL that was found in the vehicle

and the fact that the vehicle was apprehended

during the early hours, as also the fact that the

IMFL found in the vehicle was purchased from Goa,

could not be disputed. The labels on the bottles

also clearly showed to the satisfaction of the

authorities below that the said liquor was

limited for sale in Goa only. The petitioner, the

registered owner had, in no manner, discharged

his onus to establish that he had exercised

reasonable care and caution against the misuse of

the vehicle. Obviously, therefore, there is no

legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the

impugned order. The writ petition fails. The same

is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/2811