ORDER
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.
1. This revision is by the Authorised Officer, being aggrieved of the Judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8/1998 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, dated 15.4.2002, allowing the revision by setting aside the Order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer in DTCR No. 399/1995-96, dated 30.12.1997.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
That on 4.3.1996 at about 5.00 p.m., while the Inspector of Excise keeping a watch about illegal transportation of illicit liquor, intercepted a TVS moped bearing Reg. No. KA 18 E-7154. It was found that the rider of the moped Sri. N.K. Nagaraju found transporting 72 Whisky bottles in a gunny bag, without valid permit or licence. After the seizure of the illicit liquor as well as the moped bearing Reg. No. KA 18 E-7154, the records were placed before the Authorised Officer for confiscation of the vehicle as well as the liquor bottles. The owner of the moped viz., one Sri. C.T. Kumar filed an application on 17.4.1996 for interim custody of the vehicle through his advocate by pleading that he was not aware of the fact that the vehicle was being used for transportation of the illicit liquor in the gunny bag. Though the vehicle was given for interim custody, the Authorised Officer issued a show-cause notice stating as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated. Also recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the evidence of Sri C.T. Kumar, the owner of the moped. The learned Authorised Officer considering the evidence of both the parties, ordered for confiscation of the moped bearing Reg. No. KA 18 E-7154. The said Order was questioned in Criminal Appeal No. 8/1998 on the file of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the appeal by setting aside the Order of confiscation of the vehicle. It is this Order, which is questioned in the present revision.
3. Learned Government Pleader Sri. C. Ramakrishna submitted that the reasons of the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge in interfering with the Order of the Excise Officer is erroneous and not sustainable and it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. Also submitted that the Authorised Officer failed to take note of the ingredients of Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the reasons assigned are not based on facts. Therefore, prayed to allow the revision by confirming the Order of confiscation.
4. The respondent though served, remained unrepresented.
5. The point for consideration that arises is;
Whether the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge is justified in interfering with the Order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer? If so, liable to be interfered with
6. It is clear from the records that the Inspector of Excise seized 72 bottles of Whisky, which were found illegally transporting on a moped bearing Reg. No. KA 18 E-7154 by putting in a gunny bag on 4.3.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. It is relevant to note that though the seizure of the vehicle was on 4.3.1996, the so called owner of the moped Sri. C.T. Kumar did not bother to check up as to what had happened to his moped till 17.4.1996, on which day he filed an application for release of the vehicle for interim custody. The owner of the vehicle Sri. C.T. Kumar in his evidence before the Authorised Officer has deposed as follows:
7. Though Sri. C.T. Kumar in his evidence has stated that he was not knowing as to who was the accused viz., Nagaraju and having stated that at the instance of his brother, his moped was taken. The owner of the vehicle did riot choose to examine his brother to substantiate his case. In a case where the vehicle is involved for transportation of contraband articles under the Excise Act, it is for the applicant to prove and establish that his vehicle was not used or involved, within his knowledge for a commission of such offence. But, the same is absent in the present case. There was no reason for the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge to interfere with the reasons of the Authorised Officer and further the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of Sri. C.T. Kumar. That apart, the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has ignored the ingredients of Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, which enables the Inspector or any Excise Officer to search without warrant. In that view of the matter, the Order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is perverse and not sustainable and there was no reason for interfering with the Order of the Authorised Officer. The owner has not explained as to why he has kept quite from 4.3.1996 to 17.4.1996, nearly for 1 1/2 months. Therefore, it is an after thought of the respondent stating that he was not aware of the fact that the vehicle was used for carrying of illicit liquor.
For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the Order passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 8/1998 by confirming the confiscation Order passed by the Authorised Officer.