TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 neces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enged Ext.P1 order in appeal, the second respondent confirmed Ext.P1 order by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P3 orders. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The explanation offered by the wife of the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner to the show cause notice issued prior to the order of confiscation is not part of the records. However, it is seen from Ext.P1 order that the explanation was that the brother of the petitioner had represented to the wife of the petitioner that the vehicle is required for taking his child to the hospital and that the vehicle has been entrusted to him for that purpose. It is seen from the recitals in Ext.P1 order that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he owner himself his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. The provision extracted above indicates that a vehicle is not liable to be confiscated under the Act, if the owner of the vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used for commission of an offence without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the vehicle and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. In other words, the scheme of the statute is that if the owner of the vehicle is unable to establish that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
