Independent confiscation under the Abkari Act survives acquittal, but vehicle involvement must still be separately assessed.

Section 67B of the Abkari Act confers an independent confiscation power once liquor or vehicles used to carry it are seized and produced before the authorised officer, so acquittal in the criminal abkari case does not by itself bar confiscation proceedings. However, the revisional authority must still independently consider the petitioner's challenge and record a reasoned finding on whether the vehicles were actually involved in the alleged offence before confirming confiscation. An order that merely relied on the completion of earlier proceedings, without such independent evaluation, was found unsustainable to that extent and required fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether acquittal in the abkari case barred confiscation proceedings under Section 67B of the Abkari Act; (ii) whether the revisional order was sustainable when it did not independently examine whether the vehicles were involved in the alleged offence.

Issue (i): whether acquittal in the abkari case barred confiscation proceedings under Section 67B of the Abkari Act.

Analysis: Section 67B creates an independent power of confiscation once liquor or conveyances used in carrying it are seized and produced before the authorised officer. The fate of the criminal case does not control the confiscation jurisdiction, and acquittal by itself does not nullify proceedings under that provision.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not bar confiscation proceedings under Section 67B of the Abkari Act.

Issue (ii): whether the revisional order was sustainable when it did not independently examine whether the vehicles were involved in the alleged offence.

Analysis: The revisional authority was required to consider the petitioner's contention on merits and record a finding on involvement of the vehicles before confirming confiscation. An order resting only on the fact that earlier confiscation proceedings had been completed, without an independent evaluation of the alleged use of the vehicles, was found unsustainable to that extent.

Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside to the extent it treated the vehicles as involved in the offence, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Confiscation proceedings could continue despite acquittal, but the revisional authority had to decide afresh whether the vehicles were actually involved in the alleged abkari offence before confirming confiscation.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings for confiscation under Section 67B of the Abkari Act are independent of the criminal prosecution, but the authority confirming confiscation must independently determine involvement of the conveyance on a reasoned consideration of the material before it.

---