Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka filed a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court – II, Koppal, in Criminal Appeal No.31/2010. The appellate court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, V. V. Prasad, and set aside the order dated 27.05.2010 passed by the Authorised Officer (Excise Superintendent, Koppal) confiscating a Bolero vehicle bearing registration number KA-29/P-0969. The prosecution's case was that on 25.09.2007 at about 7:30 p.m., based on credible information, police from Town Police Station, Gangavathi, intercepted the Bolero vehicle near Kanakagiri road and found the occupants in illegal possession of 240 bottles of Raja Whisky (180 ml each) and 288 bottles of United Fine Whisky (180 ml each). The liquor was being transported without any valid license or permit, leading to the seizure of the vehicle and initiation of confiscation proceedings under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The Authorised Officer passed an order confiscating the vehicle. The respondent, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, filed an appeal before the Fast Track Court, which allowed the appeal on the ground that no notice was issued to the owner before passing the confiscation order, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The State, aggrieved by this appellate order, filed the present revision petition. The High Court heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State. The respondent was served but remained unrepresented. The Court examined the records and noted that the appellate court had set aside the confiscation order solely on the ground that no notice was issued to the owner. The High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the appellate court's order, as the requirement of notice to the owner before confiscation is a fundamental principle of natural justice. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the Fast Track Court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. - Maintainability - State challenged the appellate order setting aside confiscation of vehicle - High Court dismissed revision holding that the appellate court correctly set aside the confiscation order as no notice was issued to the owner before confiscation - Held that principles of natural justice require notice to the owner before confiscation (Paras 1-5). B) Excise Law - Confiscation of Vehicle - Section 43A of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 - Notice to Owner - Vehicle used for transporting illicit liquor was confiscated by the Authorised Officer without issuing notice to the owner - Appellate Court set aside confiscation - High Court upheld appellate order - Held that confiscation without notice to the owner is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of confiscation of a vehicle under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, passed without issuing notice to the owner, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court – II, Koppal, in Crl. A. No.31/2010 is upheld.
Law Points
- Confiscation of vehicle under Karnataka Excise Act requires notice to owner
- Natural justice principles
- Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.
- Section 43A of Karnataka Excise Act
