Ramachandra Menon, J.

The verdict passed by the learned single Judge ordering release of the vehicle confiscated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act holding that the said vehicle, which was piloting a lorry [in which the contraband was transported] was not actually 'used' in committing the alleged offence, placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Assistant Excise Commissioner Vs. Paulson [2009 (1) KLT 956], is under challenge at the instance of the State/Excise Commissioner and others, who were the respondents in the Writ Petition.

2. With regard to the factual position, on getting secret information as to the transportation of illicit liquor in TATA 407 Mini lorry bearing No. TN 69 W 2404 accompanied by a Maruthi Wagon R car bearing No. KL 08 AR 599 aiding to clear the way, the Excise party made sufficient arrangements to intercept the vehicles and accordingly, on seeing the above vehicles on 21.07.2010, gave signal to stop the same on the spot. Though the speed of the mini lorry was reduced initially, on getting signals from the persons travelling in the front seat of the car [which was proceeding in front], both the vehicles fled away from the scene. This made the officers to chase the vehicles and after sometime, the vehicles were intercepted and physical verification was conducted. Pursuant to the said inspection, 1184 litres of spirit [arrack] was seized from the lorry. It was noted that there were two persons including the driver in the lorry, while three persons were there in the car. One person in the lorry ran away and all the remaining four persons were apprehended then and there, leading to registration of a Crime for offences under the relevant provisions of the Abkari Act. Later, one more person, to whom the Maruthi Wagon R car was handed over [by name Shijo] was also made an accused [6th accused] and the proceedings are now pending trial before Assistant Session's Court, Palakkad, as S.C. No. 510 of 2015.

3. In the course of further proceedings, notice for confiscation of the vehicles was issued in respect of both the vehicles and after completing the formalities, Ext. P3 order was passed by the 3rd respondent, ordering confiscation of the Wagon R car, in terms of Section 67B of the Act. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged the same by filing Ext. P4 appeal, wherein interference was declined and the appeal was dismissed by the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P5 order, confirming Ext. P3. This made the owner of the Maruthi Wagon R car to challenge Exts. P3 and P5 by filing writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No. 26099 of 2011.

4. The main contention raised by the respondent/writ petitioner was that, the Maruthi Wagon R car was never used for carrying liquor/contraband and that he had absolutely no knowledge with regard to the offence committed. It was also stated that he had handed over the vehicle to one Mr. Shijo on the previous day, on the strength of Ext. P2 agreement dated 20.07.2010 for the personal use of the latter on rent and that he had taken all reasonable care to see that the vehicle was not used for any illegal activity/purpose. This being the position, the vehicle was not liable to be confiscated and hence sought for release of the same.

5. The prayer was opposed from the part of the State/Revenue. Reliance was sought to be placed on the verdicts passed by two single Judges of this Court reported in 2008 (1) KHC 427 [K. Subair Vs. Assistant Excise Commissioner and Others] and 2009 (2) KHC 309 [Sajin Vs. Assistant Excise Commissioner]. The writ petitioner sought to place reliance on the verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Paulson's case [cited supra] and that of a learned single Judge in 1996 (1) KLT 321 = 1996 KHC 67 [Nazer Vs. State]. The learned single Judge observed that, by virtue of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Paulson's case [cited supra] [which was stated as never brought to the notice of the learned