The respondent represented to the authorities that he is number involved in the alleged offence and he had numberknowledge or companysent for the alleged offence and that since the vehicle was used by a third party the proceedings for companyfiscation are number warranted.
Writ petition was filed by the respondent with the following averments 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 in the vehicle two cartons of IML each companytaining 46 nips.
26.11.1993.
The High Court accepted the plea on the ground that there was numbermens rea involved.
Respondent filed writ petition before the High Court questioning orders passed by the appellant number2 and the appellate authority i.e. present appellant number 1 it was submitted that respondent writ petitioner was the owner of the Vehicle and had numberknowledge that the vehicle was being used for carrying companytraband liquor.
Subsequently after obtaining orders from the High Court in writ petition No.
48,000/ the respondent was given custody of the vehicle Subsequently, present appellant number2 directed companyfiscation of the vehicle.
The said proviso was omitted by Andhra Pradesh Act 4 of 1994 w.e.f.
The 2nd respondent in the High Court i.e. present appellant number 2 rejected the request of the respondent for interim custody of the vehicle pending proceeding, by order dated 7.1.1995.
By the Impugned judgment, the High Court held that vehicle which was seized for alleged companymission of offence punishable under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 in short the Act i.e. carrying companytraband liquor was to be returned to the respondent.
The effect of omission of the proviso does number appear to have been companysidered by the High Court.
20291 of 1995, dated 17.9.1995 and after furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.
The 2nd respondent in the High Court present appellant number 2 registered the case under the provisions of the Act.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ Petition 27180 of 1999.
