Holding

The omission of the proviso to Section 45 eliminates the protection for owners lacking knowledge, so mens rea is not required and confiscation stands.

Summary

The respondent owned a jeep that was taken by a friend and used to transport contraband liquor, leading to its seizure under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The respondent filed a writ petition claiming he had no knowledge of the offence and that mens rea was required for confiscation. The High Court accepted this argument and ordered the vehicle returned, holding that the owner’s lack of knowledge barred confiscation. On appeal, the Excise authorities contended that Section 45 of the Act, after the 1994 amendment that omitted its proviso, no longer protected owners without knowledge. The Supreme Court held that the omission of the proviso removed the protective requirement of mens rea, making confiscation valid. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether mens rea (knowledge or reason to believe) is required to be established for confiscation of a vehicle under Section 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 after the omission of its proviso.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968s. 45

Subjects

confiscationmens reaexcise lawvehiclecontraband liquorSection 45amendmentprovisoowner liability

Judgment

THE COMMISSIONER. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, A.P. AND ANR. A
v.
SHARANA GOUDA

JUNE 5, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B

~

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968

Section 45, proviso-Vehicle of owner found being used by third person
for carrying contraband liquor-Confiscation of vehicle-Set aside by High c
Court on the ground that there was no mens rea involved-Held:-Ejfect of
omission of the proviso has not been considered by High Court-Order of
High Court set aside.

A jeep of the respondent was taken by his friend on 20.11.1994, for his
~, use, later, he came to know that the said vehicle was checked by Excise officials
D
and it was found carting contraband liquor. The vehicle was directed to be
confiscated. The respondent filed writ petition before the High Court
contending that he was owner of the vehicle and had no knowledge that it was
being used for carrying contraband liquor. The High Court accepted the plea
on the ground that there was no means rea involved. E
It was contended for the appellants-Excise authorities that the High
Court completely lost sight of Section 45 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 as, at
the relevant point of time, the question of mens rea was not totally irrelevant.

On the question: Whether mens rea was required to be established by F
the prosecution,

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The effect of omission of the proviso to s. 45 of the A.P. Excise
Act, 1968 does not appear to have been considered by the High Court. When G
the proviso was part of the statute at that stage there was a prohibition on
confiscation if owner of the property in question had no reason to believe that
:>
such offence was being or was likely to be committed. This was the position
if offender was not the owner of the property. The position has changed after

935 H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 ScC.R.

A omission of the proviso. The High Court does not appear to have kept this yJ
aspect in view. Therefore, the judgement of the High Court is indefensible
and is set aside. IPara 911938-A, Bl

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of
2002.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2002 of the High Court of
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 27180 of .,..
;..
1999.

Debojit Borkakati (for D. Bharathi Reddy) for the Appellant.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR ARlJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
of Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ Petition 27180
of 1999. By the Impugned judgment, the High Court held that vehicle which
D was seized for alleged commission of offence punishable under the Andhra
Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (in short the 'Act') i.e. carrying contraband liquor (.,,,,,..,,
was to be returned to the respondent. I

2. Writ petition was filed by the respondent with the following averments:

E On 21.11.1994 a close friend of the respondent by name Banappa took
the said jeep for his use and subsequently the respondent came to know that
the vehicle was cheked by the excise officials on 21.11.1994 and they found .I

in the vehicle two cartons of IML each containing 46 nips. The 2nd respondent
in the High Court (present appellant no. 2) registered the case under the
F provisions of the Act. The respondent represented to the authorities that he
is not involved in the alleged offence and he had no knowledge or consent
for the alleged offence and that since the vehicle was used by a third party.
the proceedings for confiscation are not warranted.

3. The 2nd respondent in the High Court i.e. present appellant no. 2
G rejected the request of the respondent for interim custody of the vehicle
pending proceeding, by order dated 7.1.1995. Subsequently after obtaining
orders from the High Court in writ petition No. 20291 of 1995, dated 17 .9.1995
~-
and after furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- the respondent /
was given custody of the vehicle Subsequently, present appellant no.2 directed
confiscation of the vehicle.
H

·~·

1--
COMMNR, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, A.P. v. SHARAN A GOUDA [PASAYA T, J.] 93 7

4. Respondent filed writ petition before the High Court questioning A
orders passed by the appellant no.2 and the appellate authority i.e: present
appellant no. 1 it was submitted that respondent (writ petitioner) was the
owner of the Vehicle and had no knowledge that the vehicle was being used
for carrying contraband liquor. The High Court accepted the plea on the
ground that there was no mens rea involved.
B
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the High Court has completely Jost sight of Section 45 of the Act. At
the relevant point of time the question of mens rea was totally irrelevant.

6. The respondent is not represented in spite of the service of notice. C
7. TJ:le only question for consideration is wheJher mens rea was required
to be established by the appellant. In this connection Section 45 of the Act
needs to be noted. There was originally a proviso to sub-section (2) thereof.
The said proviso was omitted by Andhra Pradesh Act 4 of 1994 w.e.f.
26.11.1993. Section 45 after the ommission of the proviso reads as follows: D
"45 Liability of certain things to confiscation: -Whenever an offence
has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following
things shall be liable to confiscation, namely :-

(1) any intoxicant materials, still, utensil, implements, or apparatus in E
respect of or by means of, which such offence has been committed:

(2) any intoxicant lawfully imported, or transported, manufactured,
had in possession, sold or brought along with, or in addition to any
intoxicant liable to confiscation under clause ( 1); and

(3) any respectable, package, or covering in which anything liable to F
confiscation under clause (I) or clause (2), is found, and the other
contents, if any, of such receptacle, package or covering and any
animal, vehicle, vessel raft or other conveyance used for carrying the
same"

8. The proviso which has been omitted reads as follows: G
"Provided that, if anything specified in clause (3) is not the property
of the offender, it shall not be confiscated if the owner thereof had
no reason to believe that such offence was being or was likely to be
committed."
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A 9. The effect of omission of the proviso does not appear to have been
considered by the High Court. When the proviso was part of the statute, it
was provided that any thing specified in clause (3) of Section 45 is not the
property of the offender, it shall not be confiscated if the owner thereof had
no reason to believe that such offence was being or was likely to be committed.
B At that stage there was a prohibition on confiscation if owner of the property
in question had no-reason to believe that such offence was being or was
likely to be committed. This was the position if offender was not the owner
of the property. The position has changed after omission of the proviso. The
High Court does not appear to have kept this aspect in view. Therefore, the
impugned judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set allowed.
c I 0. The appeal is allowed.

RP. Appeal allowed.