High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ajay Chaurasia v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 24813 of 2007  RD-AH 9986 (24 May 2007)
Court No. 21.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24813 of 2007
Ajay Chaurasia Versus State of U.P. and others.
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petition's vehicle Tata Scorpio No. UP 78 AC/0736 was searched on 10.1.2004 by Incharge S.O.G. Agra. It was found that the vehicle is driven by Guddu Kushwaha and Sri Ashok Jauli and Sri Amit Chauarasia were seated in the vehicle. The search resulted into recovery of 392 bottles of foreign whisky. A report was submitted to Collector for confiscation of the vehicle under Section 72 of the U.P.Excise Act. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he filed reply stating that he is resident of Kanpur Nagar and one of his relative at Lucknow has requested to borrow his vehicle for one week as he has to visit at Agra and Delhi. The petitioner sent his vehicle with his driver on 8.1.2004 and subsequently he came to know that the vehicle was detained at Police Station Tajganj.
The Collector Agra, after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that contraband goods were being transported in the vehicle and confiscated the same under Section 72 of the Excise Act vide order dated 31.1.2006. In appeal the Commissioner has recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to prove that the contraband goods were transported in the vehicle without his knowledge or that he had taken reasonable and necessary precaution that the contraband goods are not transported in the vehicle.
Learned counsel for the petition states that the search was illegal and that the petitioner has no knowledge about the transportation of contraband goods. It is contended that the petitioner had given his vehicle in good-faith for want of his relative.
In order to avoid confiscation, the petitioner has to prove that the transportation of contraband goods was made without his knowledge and that the owner of the vehicle and the person incharge
of the vehicle had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution. The petitioner could not support his objection by sufficient evidence or material.
The petitioner could not establish that his vehicle was used for carrying 392 bottles of foreign whisky without his knowledge or that he has taken reasonable care for illegal use. The petitioner did not even give the name of the relative who had borrowed the vehicle from him .
The writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.