Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 306 - HC - Indian LawsConfiscation of a seized car - involvement in a case under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act - Held that: - if the owner of the vehicle is unable to establish that the person in charge of the vehicle had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against use of the vehicle for commission of any offence, the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, even if the same had been used for commission of the offence without his knowledge. In the instant case, going by the admitted case, the offence is alleged to have been committed by the person in charge of the vehicle. When the person in charge of the vehicle himself is an accused, the petitioner cannot avoid an order of confiscation on the ground that the offence has been committed without his knowledge. There is yet another reason also for me to come to the said conclusion. Exts.P1 and P3 orders indicate that Biju, to whom the vehicle has been entrusted, was an accused in a similar case earlier also, where the allegation is that he possessed 3570 litres of spirit. The petitioner has no case that his wife was not aware of the involvement of his brother in a similar case at the time when the vehicle was entrusted to him. As such, even if it is assumed that the wife of the petitioner was the person in charge of the vehicle, it cannot be said that she had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against use of the vehicle for commission of offences under the Act while entrusting the vehicle to the brother of the petitioner. Exts.P1 and P3 orders, in the circumstances, are in order. The writ petition is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Decided against petitioner-assessee.
|