HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.4850 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
ORDER
No DATE Note
3. 08.03.2022 RRR, J The vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TA 6678 was seized, on 09.02.2022, in Crime No.19 of 2022, registered by the 6th respondent. The seizure is said to have been carried out on the ground that a confessional statement, recorded in this crime, revealed that about 250 boxes of liquor had been transported illegally into the State of Andhra Pradesh and against the provisions of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968, in the said vehicle.
Aggrieved by the said seizure, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the said seizure and proceedings for confiscation are clearly violative of Section 45(3) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968.
Sri Siva Sai Swarup learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of A.P in the case of K.Veera Prasada Rao & Another Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise.,1 had considered the provision of Sub Section 3 of Section 45 of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and had held that when no incriminating material is found in a vehicle it cannot be seized or confiscated on the basis that it was earlier used for transporting or carrying contraband found elsewhere.
In the present case, the vehicle was not seized while it was alleged to have been transporting contraband liquor. It has been 1 2009(1) ALD 740::2008(1)ALD218 2 seized later.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Excise Department submits that the facts of the present case are different from the facts in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as such, the said judgment cannot be applied to the present case.
He would further submit that some of the respondents could not have been party to the writ petition. He submits that respondents 1 and 3 could not have been made a party to the writ petition as Home Department has nothing to do with the present case.
The judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P was on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 45(3) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. The said interpretation is not contingent upon the facts of the case and the said interpretation would apply across all fact situations of this nature. It is an admitted case that the vehicle had been seized much later and not during the time when the vehicle was alleged to have been transporting contraband liquor. Prima facie, a case is made out in favour of the petitioner for release of the vehicle.
Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the 6th respondent to release the vehicle within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
The said release shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle and shall keep the said vehicle in good and proper repair and produced it before the 6th respondent as and when it is required pending disposal of this writ petition.
________ RRR, J RJS 3