Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a motor vehicle alleged to have been used only as an escort vehicle, and not for actually carrying contraband, could be confiscated under the Abkari Act; and whether the owner's claimed lack of knowledge or complicity affected the validity of confiscation.
Analysis: The vehicle was not itself used to carry the contraband. The Court preferred the Division Bench ruling holding that confiscation under Section 67B of the Abkari Act is justified only where the conveyance is used for carrying the contraband, and not merely because it accompanied another vehicle. Since the vehicle was only alleged to have been used as an escort, the confiscation orders could not be sustained. In view of this conclusion, the question whether the petitioner had discharged the burden under Section 67C(2) of the Abkari Act did not assume significance.
Conclusion: The confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle was unsustainable and was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the confiscation and appellate orders were quashed, and the authorities were directed to refund the amount deposited for interim custody.
Ratio Decidendi: A conveyance cannot be confiscated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act unless it was actually used for carrying the contraband; mere use as an escort vehicle is insufficient.