ABEYESTJNDERE, J.—Per era v. Abraham
P. TERERA, Appellant, and M. B. ABRAHAM (S. I. Police),
S. C. 738/61—M. C. Colombo, 1456/C
Excise 'Ordinance (Cap. 52)—Section 54—Confiscation of a motor car—Legality
In an appeal from an order to confiscate a motor car in which pot arrack wastransported—
Held, that the confiscation of the motor car was not warranted by the pro-visions of section 54 of the Exciso Ordinance. Nor was there any evidence of theimplication of the owner of the motor car in the offence with winch the accusedwere charged.
Appeal from an order of the Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.
Colvin B. de Silva, with A. JR. M. Manzoor, for the appellant..
H. B. White, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
May 23, 1962. Abeyesundere, J.—
This is an appeal from an order to confiscate a motor car in whichthirty gallons of pot arrack were transported.
The only section in the Excise Ordinance enabling the confiscation ofthings is section 54 (old section 51). According to sub-section (1) of thatsection, the excisable article, materials, still, utensil, implement orapparatus in respect of or by means of which an offence has beencommitted under the Excise Ordinance shall be liable to confiscation.Sub-section (2) of that section provides for the confiscation, inter alia,of any conveyance used in carrying any excisable article lawfully imported,transported, manufactured, had in possession, or sold along with, or inaddition to, any excisable article liable to confiscation under that section.
The aforesaid section does not apply to the present case and the motorcar in question cannot be confiscated thereunder. Moreover, as contendedby counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence of the implication of theowner of the motor car in the offence with which the accused were charged.Nor is there any evidence to show that the driver of the motor car was anemployees of the owner.
I hold that the order to confiscate the motor car is invalid and I set asidethat order. The motor car is at present in the possession of the owner;who has provided cash security for obtaining such possession. I orderthat the motor car be returned to its owner and that the cash depositedas security be refunded to him.
Order set aside.
B. P. PERERA, Appellant, and M. B. ABRAHAM (S. I. Police ), Respondent