Judgment : The owner of the vehicle standard van, bearing registration No. TDT.7569 was preferred the above revision against the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, made in C.A.No.79 of 1989 dated 9. 1989 rejecting the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.1226 of 1986. 2. The short facts which lead to the filing of the present revision, as culled out from the records of both the courts are stated as follows: In the main road leading to Shanmughapuram, situate near Vembar at about 5.00 p.m. on 13. 1986 when the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing of the Tamil Nadu Police intercepted a van driven by one of the accused by name Sankar, it was found that without any valid permit or licence they were transporting toddy which was in 13 plastic cans and therefore the said contraband along with the van was recovered under the cover of mahazar and the accused were arrested and after they have duly investigated, a final report, was filed before the learned trial Magistrate and upon the full trial, the accused were found guilty and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.2,000 each. 3. While delivering the judgment, the learned trial Magistrate has ordered the van bearing registration No. TDT.7569 used for transporting the toddy to be confiscated for the State. Aggrieved by this the owner of the vehicle one Muthu Pandian has preferred the appeal, C. A.No.79 of 1989 and after hearing the appeal on reassesing the entire evidence the lower appellate court dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved at this, the owner has canvassed the correctness of the above finding before this Court. 4. Mr.T.Sudanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner attacked the very basis upon which both the courts below ordered the confiscation of the van bearing registration No. TDT.7569 to the State without following the legal norms provided under Sec.452, Crl.P.C, dealt with 14(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, as amended. Perhaps this is the one and only ground on which the learned counsel has canvassed this revision assailing the impugned judgment passed by the courts below. 5. I have heard Mr.Shanmughavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard. Perhaps this is the one and only ground on which the learned counsel has canvassed this revision assailing the impugned judgment passed by the courts below. 5. I have heard Mr.Shanmughavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard. At the outset I may observe that there is every force in the contention raised by Mr.Sudanthiram, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. To appreciate his contention, it has become necessary for me to refer to Secs.14(1) and (2) with the proviso of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. “14(1) when the offender is convicted or when the person charged with an offence against this Act is acquitted, but the court decides that anything is liable to confiscation such confiscation shall be ordered by the court. (2) where during the trial of a case for an offence against this act, the court decides thatanything is liable to confiscation, the court shall order the confiscation. Provided that no animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle shall be confiscated under Sub-sec.(1) or Sub-sec.(2), if the court after hearing the owner of such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle and any person claiming any right thereto, is satisfied that the owner and such person had exercised due care in the prevention of the omission of such an offence.” A plain reading of Sec.l4(1), (2) and proviso, makes it so clear that the power vested with the court while trying the offence and finding the accused guilty or acquitted is empowered to decide that any animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is to be disposed of by means of confiscation and that while passing such order or deciding such matter, the courts shall hear the owner of such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle and satisfy further itself further that such person or the owner had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of such an offence. It is thus, this section clearly envisages providing a clear opportunity to the owner of such vessel, animal, cart or other vehicle involved in the commission of any offence to explain the fact as to how and in what manner he has taken care to prevent his vessel, animal, cart or other vehicle being used for any illegal purpose and the precautions taken by the owner of the property before confiscation was ordered. This was the reason and the object with which the proviso has been added to Sec.14, Clauses (1) and (2) by the Act itself. If this is the position, then it makes it clear that both the learned trial Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have clearly and conveniently overlooked the abovesaid legal mandate to the total prejudice of the owner, namely, the revision petitioner herein and as such the impugned judgment is vitiated by illegality and impropriety. That apart, Sec.452, Criminal Procedure Code provides the various norms and the mode and the manner which the court of a trial should follow in disposing the property involved in commission of an offence has not been followed by both the Courts below. Inspite of this Court having repeatedly held and insisted the said principles to be followed by courts of law in this country, it is strange that this mandatory legal procedure has been totally and completely overlooked by both the courts below which clearly amounts to a total erroneous approach. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by both the courts of law regarding confiscation are liable to be set aside. 6. However, in the light of the conviction and sentence passed against the driver and cleaner of the van in question, the same have not been challenged in the appeal. In the light of the fact that the van in question was found in use of transporting the contraband, the owner namely, the revision petitioner is to be provided with an opportunity to place his explanation before the court of law as contemplated by Sec.l4of the Tamil NaduProhi-bition Act. Therefore, to provide such an opportunity I feel while setting aside the impugned order, the matter has to be remitted back to the trial Magistrate to conduct the enquiry regarding the vehicle involved in this case as provided under Secs.l4(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Sec.452 of the Criminal Procedure Code by giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner herein and others concerned and record oral evidence necessary by both sides and dispose of the same in accordance with law, afresh. 7. Thus, the revision is allowed partly, and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.79 of 1989, dated 9. 7. Thus, the revision is allowed partly, and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.79 of 1989, dated 9. 1989 and the judgment of the trial court regarding confiscation are hereby set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli to conduct a fresh enquiry regarding the vehicle involved as indicated above and in accordance with the procedure and law as pointed out above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.