Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. In relation to a hooch tragedy, the respondent authorities registered a crime in Crime No. 361/2010 on the file of Wandoor Police Station for the offence under Sections 302,307, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 57(A) of the Abkari Act and investigated the crime. During the course of the investigation, based on the alleged confession made by one of the accused in the crime, the Police seized the petitioner's vehicle, a Tempo Traveler bearing Registration No. KL7-BC-4141, though the petitioner himself is not an accused. Later, after the initial seizure, the authorities confiscated the vehicle, as part of which the third respondent passed Exhibit P5 order under Section 67B of the Abkari Act (the 'Act' for brevity).

2. Aggrieved, when the petitioner appealed against Exhibit P5, the second respondent, through Exhibit P6 order, negatived the petitioner's claim and confirmed the findings of the third respondent. The fact, however, remains that in the light of the interim custody obtained by the petitioner initially after providing a cash deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the vehicle was in the custody of the petitioner by the time the appellate authority passed the order, and continued to be in his possession.

3. Assailing Exhibit P6 order in appeal rendered by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, haying drawn my attention to Exhibit P6 order in appeal, has strenuously contended that the impugned orders of both the primary authority and the appellate authority do not contain any reasons why the petitioner's vehicle has been confiscated. According to him, the order of confiscation has been confirmed in appeal on mere surmises and conjectures.

5. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that the confiscating authorities have not given the petitioner the benefit of Section 37(c) of the Act. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel has singularly contended that in the absence of either active connivance or conscious knowledge on the part of the petitioner as the owner of the vehicle, his vehicle, the source of his livelihood, could not have been confiscated.

6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Circle Inspector (Excise), Neyyattinkara v. Mukundan, 1975 KHC 129, Rajesh K. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Palakkad and Others, 2015 (4) KHC 253, Ravichandran v. Excise Inspector, 2015 (1) KLT 218, and Asst. Excise Commissioner v. Paulson, 2009 (1) KLT 959.

7. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that the petitioner's vehicle was seized in connection with a crime which involved the loss of human life: the hooch tragedy. He has further submitted that mere assumption that the petitioner had no knowledge about the use of his vehicle for an illegal purpose could not exonerate him from the, statutory consequences under the Act. Once it is established that the petitioner's vehicle has been used for transporting illicit liquor, the consequences have to follow, contends the learned Government Pleader.

8. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned Government Pleader has contended that, to take benefit of Section 67C of the Act, the owner of the vehicle has to discharge a very heavy evidentiary burden. In other words, it is for the petitioner to explain that despite his best care and caution to ensure that the vehicle had not been put to any illegal use, somebody else without his knowledge had used, rather misused, the vehicle, in the first place.

9. Regarding the authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the ratio laid down in those judgments does not apply to the facts of the present case.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader, apart from perusing the record.

11. Indeed, it is unfortunate that the rapacious and ruinous lure of lucre o