TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that, on 21.07.2010, the petitioner's vehicle while being used by another person, namely one Mr. Shijo, was intercepted and seized by the fourth respondent on the allegation that it was used as an escort vehicle for another vehicle carrying certain contraband. In fact, Crime No. 27 of 2010 for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Act was also registered. 4. In the course of time, the third respondent, exercising his powers under Section 67B of the Abkari Act (the Act), confiscated the petitioner's vehicle through Ext.P3 order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal and invited Ext.P4 order from the second respondent, who confirmed the third respondent's Ext.P3 order of confiscation. Further aggrieved, the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ength of an agreement, he miserably failed to produce it before the primary authority. According to him, Ext.P2 ought to have been fabricated only as an afterthought. 9. Placing reliance on Subair v. Assistant Excise Commissioner 2008(1) KLT 493 and Sajin v. Assistant Excise Commissioner 2009(2) KLT 389, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the use of vehicle as an escort to another vehicle actually carrying the contraband is a composite ingredient of the transaction. In that sense, according to the learned Government Pleader, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner's vehicle has also been used for carrying the contraband. 10. Eventually, the learned Government Pleader has contended that the petitioner has furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Government Pleader, in the absence of producing at the earliest point of time the alleged agreement between the petitioner and the accused in the crime despite pleading to that effect, in the ordinary circumstance, the adjudicatory authority would be justified in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner's innocence--which the third respondent did. 16. In Subair (supra), the facts are that the mini-lorry carrying spirit was accompanied by a motor cycle belonging to the driver of the lorry; both the vehicles were confiscated. In that context, the owner of the vehicle therein contested the confiscation on the grounds that the Abkari Act does not provide for confiscation of any vehicle other than that carrying the contraba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e carrying of the contraband in the lorry, by being used as an effective escorting vehicle in the act of carrying the contraband in the lorry. Such escorting is not segregable from the factum of carrying the contraband in the lorry. The act of escorting a lorry carrying a contraband, as in this case, is a composite ingredient of the transaction which can be called as "used" in carrying. The degree of control that the petitioner had over the operation of the motor cycle is such that he had complete control over the destination to which the lorry and the motor cycle escorting it were to reach and the route along which they should ply. Therefore, the motor cycle cannot be taken out of the sweep of S.67B of the Act." (emphasis supplied) 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rying the same can be seized and confiscated. The learned Judge found that even according to the case of the State, the vehicle never carried liquor and, therefore, it cannot be confiscated under S.67-B. . ." (emphasis supplied) 21. It is apposite to observe that Subair (supra) was decided on 03.01.2008; Sajin (supra) on 24.03.2009. On the other hand, Paulson (supra) was decided by a learned Division Bench on 06.01.2009. As a matter of sheer chronology, there was no occasion for Subair to be impacted by Paulson; at any rate, though Sajin was subsequent, Paulson does not seem to have brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 22. Whatever be my predilection as regards the conflicting judicial dicta, propriety demands that I ....