Judgment 1. Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the confiscation notice C.No.591-22/ADSP/PEW/KGI/2014 dated 30.10.2014 directing the petitioner to produce Tempo Traveller KA-02-AC-6111 before the respondent, for the purpose of confiscation u/s 14 of TNP Act passed by the respondent. 2. In exercise of the powers under Section 14(4) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937, by impugned proceedings in C.No.591-22/ADSP/PEW/KGI/2014 dated 30.10.2014, the Additional Superintendent of Police, (PEW), Krishnagiri District has directed the petitioner to produce vehicle viz., Tempo Travellor bearing Regn. No.KA-02-AC-6111 for valuation. 3. Material on record discloses that the subject vehicle was intercepted on 07.12.2012 by Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Hosur Police and found to have carried twelve persons and during search, police have recovered 9 Beer bottles and whisky bottles. A case in Cr.No.760/2012 under Section 4(1)(a) Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, has been registered by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Hosur Police. Petitioner, owner of the vehicle and not an accused, has sought for a direction in Crl.M.P.No.9310 of 2012 for release of the vehicle and by order dated 19.12.2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, has directed release of the vehicle with a condition that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle on the first working day of every English calendar month without altering its physical appearance until further orders. Vehicle has been taken delivery. 4. After nearly two years, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Krishnagiri District vide proceedings dated 30.10.2014 has directed the petitioner to produce the vehicle for valuation. Perusal of the proceedings shows that the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, has made recommendations for production of the vehicle for valuation, failing which for confiscation. 5. Assailing the said proceedings, Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 07.12.2012 and that so far, no charge sheet has been filed. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 4(1)(a) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act and proviso to Section 4(1) (k) (iii), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nothing contained in the sub Sections 4(1)(a), shall apply to possession for personal consumption of the prescribed quantity of liquor. According to him, notice issued for production of vehicle for valuation, is without jurisdiction. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. According to him, notice issued for production of vehicle for valuation, is without jurisdiction. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Material on record discloses that vide order dated 19.12.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.9310 of 2012, learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur has directed return of the vehicle to the petitioner on the following condition: “The petitioner shall produce the vehicle on 1st working day of every English Calendar month without altering its physical appearance until further orders”. 8. Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, has requested for confiscation as per Section 14(A) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and for the sale of the vehicle in public auction and consequently to deposit thereof. Relevant paragraph from the proceedings is extracted hereunder: (“Tamil”) 9. Referring to an undertaking said to have been given by the petitioner for production of the vehicle and in default to pay fine, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Krishnagiri District has directed the petitioner to surrender the vehicle for confiscation. Section 14 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, deals with how confiscation has to be ordered. Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 14 of the Act, deals with the power of the Court and they are reproduced. 14. Confiscation how ordered: [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 that anything is liable to confiscation, the Court shall order the confiscation: Provided that no animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle shall be confiscated under sub-section [1] or sub-section [2] if that 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 commission of such an offence; 10. In the case on hand, the accused are known. Hence, sub section 3 of Section 14 is not attracted. FIR has been registered. In the case on hand, the accused are known. Hence, sub section 3 of Section 14 is not attracted. FIR has been registered. Section 14(4) of the Act is independent of sub Section 3 of Act and it reads as follows: “Not withstanding anything contained in sub-sections [1] to [3], if the Collector or other Prohibition Officer in charge of the district or any other officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, is satisfied that an offence has been committed against his Act and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for such offence. He may without prejudice to any order confiscation of any animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle used in the commission of such offence; 11. As per the provision, before passing an order of confiscation, the owner or the person from whom the vehicle is seized shall be given : a notice in writing informing him of the ground son which it is proposed to confiscate the animal, vessel, car or other vehicle. An opportunity of making a representation in writing within a reasonable time not exceeding fourteen days as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter; Provided further that the owner or the person from whom such animal, vessel, cart or other vehicle is seized shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, an amount not exceeding the market price of such anumal, vessel, cart or other vehicle.” 12. In the case on hand, presuming that the vehicle is liable for confiscation and for the said purpose, valuation has to be done, the Additional Superintendent of Prohibition Enforcement Wing Krishnagiri District has directed the petitioner produce the vehicle on 10.11.2014 at 10.00 AM, in the office of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Krishnagiri District, failing which, proceedings for confiscation would be taken. 13. Impugned proceedings does not disclose that the procedure prescribed for confiscation is followed. Direction to produce the vehicle should be an act, consequent to an order passed under sub section (4) of Section 14 of the Act i.e. An order for surrendering the vehicle should follow an order of confiscation. Predetermination to confiscate the vehicle, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner is per se apparent. Valuation is sought to be made for the said purpose. Predetermination to confiscate the vehicle, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner is per se apparent. Valuation is sought to be made for the said purpose. Having regard to the procedure contemplated, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings. Not withstanding the powers of the Court, if the Prohibition officer in charge of the district is inclined to confiscate the vehicle in exercising his powers under Section 14(4) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937, liberty is given, subject to the compliance of the procedure. 14. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside and this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.