Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Challenge is against Ext.P1. That is an order passed by the Excise Commissioner, first respondent exercising his power as revisional authority under Sec.67F of the Abkari Act. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a taxi car bearing registration No. KRU 6013. In June, 1996 he was away from Kerala in Calcutta. The vehicle had been entrusted to his driver. On 22-6-1988, when the petitioner was away at Calcutta an excise party intercepted the said vehicle. The driver did not stop the vehicle and the vehicle was chased by the excise party. The vehicle met with an accident and at the point of accident the excise party inspected the vehicle. It was found that the vehicle was carrying 66.5 Kg of ganja, an intoxicating drug. The passengers as well as the driver ran away. The vehicle as well as the article was taken into custody by the excise officials and produced before the Authorised Officer. It was later that the accused persons were apprehended. They admitted guilt. These are the admitted facts before me. 3. Proceedings were initiated in accordance with Sec. 67 B and C of the said Act for confiscation of the vehicle by serving show cause notice serving on the petitioner and collecting evidence. The contention of the petitioner, the owner of the vehicle was that he was away in Calcutta. Therefore the transportation of the drug was without his knowledge or connivance. He also contended that the driver to whom he had entrusted the vehicle, while he was away, also was not aware of the contents of the article taken in the luggage of the passengers. The driver also did not have the knowledge of the contraband article. Therefore the vehicle ought not have been confiscated. 4. Inspite of that the Asst. Excise Commissioner confiscated the vehicle. An appeal was filed. Appeal was allowed remanding the matter to the Asst. Commissioner to decide it afresh. At that stage the Asst. Excise Commissioner ordered that the vehicle was not liable to be confiscated because the incident had taken place without the knowledge ad connivance of the petitioner. It was subject to confirmation by the Excise Commissioner. There upon the matter was taken in suo moto revision by the Excise Commissioner. He ordered to confiscate the vehicle. This was challenged before this court. It was subject to confirmation by the Excise Commissioner. There upon the matter was taken in suo moto revision by the Excise Commissioner. He ordered to confiscate the vehicle. This was challenged before this court. Initially the challenge was replied, but in writ Appeal the Commissioner was directed to decide the matter afresh after rendering an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was heard and Ext.P1 was issued confiscating the vehicle on the ground that, eventhough the petitioner was away at Calcutta at the material point of time, the driver with whom the petitioner had entrusted the vehicle did not show delegence in avoiding the incident and did have knowledge and connivance in transporting the contraband articles. Therefore the vehicle was liable for confiscation. 5. It is admitted before me by petitioner that the view taken by the Excise Commissioner is totally perverse and opposed to sub Sec. 2 of Sec. 62C. The driver could not have verify the luggages of the passengers. He did not have control over such passengers and therefore it is a case where the driver did not have the knowledge and connivance in transporting the ganja. The counsel for the petitioner substantiated this inviting my attention to Ext. P2 order of the Assistant Excise Commissioner, wherein it was found earlier that vehicle was not liable to be confiscated. In Ext. P2 it is stated as follows; “On their return journey the first accused had lifted some gunny bags into the vehicle from road side and the driver did not know the contents of the gunny bags.” A taxi car is not ordinarily meant to load gunny bags. When gunny bags are loaded into the taxi car, necessarily the driver has to verify its contents. The driver did not do so. Added to this is the conduct of the driver in not stopping the vehicle when it was inspected by the excise officials, Even though the stop signal was shown to the driver, the driver did not stop the vehicle and the vehicle was taken without stopping in high speed. It had to be chased out Excise party after it met with an accident. That also the reason to suspect the driver. Even if the driver was innocent, he could be present in the scene, instead of that he had run away along with the passenger. It had to be chased out Excise party after it met with an accident. That also the reason to suspect the driver. Even if the driver was innocent, he could be present in the scene, instead of that he had run away along with the passenger. These are sufficient materials and circumstances to show that the driver was having sufficient knowledge in transporting 66.5 kg of ganja. Therefore there is nothing to interfere with Ext. P1 order. O.P. fails and is dismissed.