Cumulative statutory burden for vehicle release bars confiscation relief absent proof of no knowledge, no connivance, and due precautions.

Under the Abkari Act, release of a vehicle from confiscation depends on the owner proving the full statutory exception under Section 67C(2): absence of knowledge or connivance by the owner, the owner's agent, and the person in charge, together with proof that all reasonable precautions were taken. The burden lies on the owner, and the conditions are cumulative, so mere lack of personal knowledge is insufficient. Confiscation under Section 67B operates independently of the criminal prosecution, so acquittal or non-prosecution in the connected criminal case does not by itself defeat confiscation if the statutory requirements are otherwise met.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the owner of a vehicle seeking release from confiscation under the Abkari Act must prove the cumulative requirements under Section 67C(2), including absence of knowledge or connivance on the part of the owner, the agent, and the person in charge, along with proof of reasonable precautions. (ii) Whether acquittal in the connected criminal case or the absence of prosecution negatives confiscation proceedings under Section 67B of the Abkari Act.

Issue (i): Whether the owner of a vehicle seeking release from confiscation under the Abkari Act must prove the cumulative requirements under Section 67C(2), including absence of knowledge or connivance on the part of the owner, the agent, and the person in charge, along with proof of reasonable precautions.

Analysis: Section 67B enables confiscation of a vehicle used in carrying contraband, while Section 67C(2) creates only a limited exception in favour of the owner. The exception is available only if the owner proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, the owner's agent, if any, and the person in charge, and that each had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. The statutory language is cumulative and conjunctive. The burden is therefore not on the prosecution, but on the owner claiming the benefit of the exception. Mere absence of personal knowledge is insufficient.

Conclusion: The burden under Section 67C(2) lies on the owner, and all the stated conditions must be satisfied cumulatively; the contrary view was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether acquittal in the connected criminal case or the absence of prosecution negatives confiscation proceedings under Section 67B of the Abkari Act.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 67B is governed by its own statutory scheme and is not dependent on the outcome of criminal prosecution. The provision operates notwithstanding other laws, and the confiscation enquiry is distinct from criminal adjudication. Therefore, acquittal of the accused, or the fact that prosecution did not succeed, does not by itself defeat confiscation where the statutory requirements for confiscation are otherwise met.

Conclusion: Acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of confiscation proceedings under Section 67B.

Final Conclusion: The order releasing the vehicle was set aside and the confiscation orders were restored, with liberty to proceed for production of the vehicle or encashment of the bank guarantee in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special confiscation statute makes release conditional on proof of absence of knowledge or connivance by specified persons and of reasonable precautions, the owner must satisfy every cumulative statutory condition, and criminal acquittal does not by itself bar confiscation.

---