1. This is an application filed by the petitioner to modify condition No-1 in Annexure A1 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara in Crl. M.P. No. 1630 of 2014 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the registered owner of KL-65/A.460 Hyundai Eon Era Plus Car. The car involved in an abkari Crime No. 25 of 2014 of Vatakara Excise Range without his knowledge and he has not been made an accused as well. Even Section 67B of the Abkari Act is not attracted in such cases as evident from Sub Clause (2) of Section 67C of the Abkari Act itself. So, petitioner filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle and the learned magistrate by Annexure A1 order allowed the application on condition that he will have to furnish cash security of Rs. 2,10,000/- as condition for getting interim custody. On account of this, he is finding it difficult to get the vehicle released. He is prepared to furnish property security instead of cash deposit. So, petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:-

"To allow this petition and modify the Condition No.1 in Annexure A-1 Order and grant interim custody of the Car bearing Reg. No. KL/65A.460 to the petitioner on furnishing sufficient security by way of property security to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, in the interest of justice."

3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 4 of The Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 envisages that for getting temporary custody of the vehicle which was intended to be confiscated by the authorities for involving in abkari offence, the amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle has to be deposited in the Treasury and on producing the deposit receipt, the vehicle can be temporarily released by the authorized officer. In order to remove the difficulties caused to the owners of the vehicle on account of the same, now Section 53B was added to the statute by Amendment Act 3 of 2010 which came in to effect from 07.12.2009, whereby it can be released on executing sufficient bond by way of cash security equal to the market value of such vehicle or conveyance. If it is cash security, then, the purpose will be defeated. He is prepared to furnish property security for this amount and court is at liberty to create a charge on the property which the petitioner is proposed to produce as well.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the condition of cash security has been mentioned in the section, in order to enable the Government to recover the amount on confiscation without resorting to other coercive steps, if the property proposed to be confiscated, is not available later or the party fails to produce the article for proceeding with the confiscation. There is no necessity to modify the condition.

6. Heard both sides.

7. It is an admitted fact that the Excise Officials have seized the vehicle No. KL-65/A.460 Hyundai Eon Era Plus Car belonging to the petitioner. The above said car was alleged to have involved in the commission of an Abkari Crime. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle and the learned Magistrate by Annexure A1 order, allowed the application and relying on 53B of the Abkari Act directed the petitioner to deposit cash security of Rs. 2,10,000/- apart from executing a bond for the said amount. This condition is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this application.

8. Earlier, there was no such provision in the Act. The disposal of vehicles in respect of proposed confiscation of vehicles were dealt with by Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles), Rules 1996. Rule 4 of the said Rules deals with the same which reads