KAILASH CHANDRA versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 778 · Decided: 30-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I r· 
A 
KAILASH CHANDRA 
V. 
STATEOFM.P. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND 
LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915-ss. 46 and 47---0ffence under 
c the Act-Committed by means ofa truck-Confiscation of the truck-
Courts below finding that owner of truck failed to establish lack of 
knowledge of the offence-Propriety of confiscation-Held: Burden 
to establish lack of knowledge of offence being on the owner of the 
property, owner having/ailed to establish the same, property liable to 
~ 
D be confiscated-However, in the facts of case, fine imposed in lieu of 
confiscation-Code o/Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 452. 
Police seized truck of the appellant with the stock of foreign 
liquor. Trial Court convicted the driver of the truck u/s 34 of the M.P. 
E Excise Act, 1915. Trial court also passed the order of confiscation 
of the truck u/s 46 of the Act, holding that the offence was within the 
knowledge of the owner. The first appellate court confirmed the 
finding of trial court. High Court dismissed the revision petition 
upholding the findings of the Courts below. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that factual 
position had not been considered correctly by the courts below. 
Alternatively it contended that in lieu of confiscation, fine could be 
imposed u/s 47. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
_, 
-HELD: 1. According to the proviso to Section 46 ofM.P. Excise 
4 
Act, 1915 the burden is on the owner of the property to establish 
that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being 
committed or was likely to be committed. It provides that no animals, 
H 
778 
t 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007} 12 S.C.R. 
r 
r-· 
A with the stock of foreign liquor. Crime No.62/96 was registered at 
Kakanwani P.S. under Section 34 of the M.P. Excise Act 1915 (in short 
'the Act') and after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the 
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class against the driver Anokhilal Porwal. 
The truck was and is still owned by the appellant-Kailashchandra. The 
B Trial Court, after completion of the trial, by judgment dated 19.03.2001 
convicted the accused and sentenced him to R.I. for one year and a fine 
of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for two 
months and also issued show-cause notice to the appellant for confiscation 
of the truck as per provision under Section 46 of the Act 1915. The 
c appellant submitted the reply, but the trial court was not satisfied therewith 
and ordered for confiscation of the truck. Against this order, the appellant 
Kailashchandra submitted appeal (Cri. A.No. 25/2001) whereby the 
lower Appellate Court remanded the case back by order dated 
29.11.2001 on the ground·that Supratdar was not served with the notice 
D for confiscation of the truck personally. 
~ 
The Trial Court registered Misc. Criminal Case No.34/2000 and 
again issued show-cause notice to the Supratdar/appellant The appellant 
submitted his reply and also got himself examined as well as wit:nes.5 Onkar. 
Trial Court, again passed the order of confiscation of the truck on 
E 07.03.2000. This order was again challenged by the appellant in Crl. 
A.No.24/03 by judgment dated 12.09.2003. Against this judgment/order, 
the appellant Kailashchandra filed Cri.Rev.No. 773/03 before the High 
Court and the High Court again remanded the case back to the lower 
Appellate Court on the ground that the lower Appellate Court had not 
F mentioned under which provision oflaw (whether new or old) the appeal 
• . 
was filed and to decide afresh and also issued direction to the Trial Court 
to see whether the accused Anokhilal filed any appeal and if any filed, 
what was the fate of that appeal. The lower Appellate Court, in view of 
the aforesaid direction issued by the High Court, heard both the parties 
G in detail and decided all the issues. 
According to the Trial Court, a Criminal case was registered by the 
' 
police against accused Anokhilal with regard to illegal transportation of 
foreign liquor in the truck on 26.04.1996. Therefore, the provision of 
H confiscation of Section 46 of the Act, will apply and the amended provision 
·1 
) 
KAILASHCHANDRA v. STATE[PASAYAT,J.] 
781 
., r 
of Section 47 and 47-A substituted by M.P. Excise Act (Act No. XXII A 
of2000) which came into force from 04.08.2000, will not apply and final 
disposal of the criminal case alongwith Section 46 of the Act read with 
Section 452oft
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.