Ramachandra Menon, J.

Whether Section 53B of the Kerala Abkari Act (the 'Act' in short) conferring power upon a 'Court' to grant interim custody of the vehicle seized in connection with commission of an Abkari offence [on execution of a Bond by way of cash security equivalent to the market value of the vehicle] without prejudice to the proceedings to be continued in connection with Section 67B of the Abkari Act (for confiscation) has wiped off the power of the officer concerned under Rule 4 of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 (herein after referred to as the 'Confiscation Rules') to insist "cash security equivalent to the market value" for granting interim custody ? Does Rule 4 (2) (a) of the Rules stand in violation of Section 53B of the Kerala Abkari Act ? Could the term 'Court' as it appears under Section 53B of the Act be reckoned as having a wider meaning, to include any competent authority/forum, who passes an order on the question of 'interim custody' of the vehicle seized under the Act ? Has the law has been correctly laid down in Abdul Nazer Vs. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 1073] with reference to Section 53B of the Act ? Whether t