TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court overturns vehicle confiscation order under Kerala Abkari Act, petitioner vindicated.</h1> <h3>B.N. Mohankumar Versus The Additional Commissioner of Excise, (Enforcement), The Deputy Commissioner of Excise</h3> B.N. Mohankumar Versus The Additional Commissioner of Excise, (Enforcement), The Deputy Commissioner of Excise - TMI Issues:1. Seizure and confiscation of a vehicle under Section 67C of the Kerala Abkari Act.2. Burden of proof on the owner regarding knowledge of alleged crime.3. Application of Section 67C(2) of the Act in the case.Analysis:1. The case involved the seizure and subsequent confiscation of a vehicle under Section 67C of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner, a resident of Karnataka, lent his car to friends who were intercepted by Excise officials with liquor bottles in Kerala. The driver was arrested, but later acquitted. The vehicle was seized and ultimately confiscated by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, leading to the petitioner's appeal against the decision.2. The primary issue revolved around the burden of proof on the owner regarding knowledge of the alleged crime. The petitioner contended that he had no knowledge of the offense and should benefit under Section 67C of the Act. The government pleader argued that a mere denial was insufficient to discharge the burden under the provision, citing the orders passed by the authorities as justification.3. The judgment delved into the application of Section 67C(2) of the Act, emphasizing the positive burden on the owner to prove lack of knowledge or complicity in the offense. The court highlighted the necessity for cogent evidence from the owner to fulfill this obligation. Reference was made to a previous case to underscore the importance of satisfying that the vehicle was used for the offense with the owner's knowledge or connivance.4. Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner had indeed discharged his burden under Section 67C(2) of the Act. The judge reasoned that the circumstances indicated the petitioner's lack of involvement or knowledge in the offense committed by the driver. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the confiscation order, and directed the authorities to release the bank guarantee to the petitioner, who had already been in possession of the vehicle. No costs were awarded in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
