Natural justice in confiscation matters requires real consideration of the owner's explanation, while mens rea is not needed for confiscation.

Confiscation of a conveyance could not be sustained where the owner was issued notice but his explanation was not genuinely considered, because the process failed to provide a real opportunity of defence and breached natural justice; the confiscation order was therefore quashed. Liability of the vehicle to confiscation did not depend on proof of mens rea, since a conveyance used in removing prohibited goods becomes liable under the statutory scheme. However, the owner's degree of involvement could still be relevant when fixing the redemption fine, as culpability may affect the quantum of penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation of the car could be sustained when the owner was not afforded a real opportunity to explain his case and his representation was not considered. (ii) Whether mens rea was necessary to make the conveyance liable to confiscation, and whether it could nevertheless bear upon the quantum of redemption fine.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation of the car could be sustained when the owner was not afforded a real opportunity to explain his case and his representation was not considered.

Analysis: A show-cause notice had been issued to the owner, but the confiscation order did not show any consideration of his explanation or version. The purpose of the notice was therefore frustrated, and the owner was effectively deprived of his property without being heard. In such a situation, the order could not stand for want of a real opportunity of defence.

Conclusion: The confiscation order was unsustainable for breach of natural justice and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether mens rea was necessary to make the conveyance liable to confiscation, and whether it could nevertheless bear upon the quantum of redemption fine.

Analysis: Liability of the conveyance to confiscation did not depend upon proof of guilty intention. A vehicle used in the removal of prohibited goods became liable to confiscation by force of the statutory scheme. At the same time, the extent of the owner's participation could be relevant in fixing the redemption fine, since culpability may bear on the penalty to be imposed.

Conclusion: Mens rea was not required for confiscation, but it could be relevant to the quantum of redemption fine.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the confiscation order was quashed, leaving the authority at liberty to consider the petitioner's explanation and the appropriate penalty in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a confiscation order is made against an owner's conveyance, the owner's explanation must be genuinely considered to satisfy natural justice, while proof of mens rea is unnecessary for confiscation itself though it may affect the penalty.

---